DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1 through 10, in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. As part of the reply, applicants have cancelled Claims 11 through 15, belonging to the invention of Group II.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language includes a phrase that can be implied, e.g. ‘’…of the present invention”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 through 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In Claim 1, “the metal pillar” (line 4) should be changed to –the column-shaped metal pillar--. Subsequent occurrences of “the metal pillar” in each of Claims 4 through 10 should be changed to –the column-shaped metal pillar--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, “The connecting pillar” (line 1) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 7, “the aspect ratio” (line 2) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 9, “the entire outer surface” (line 2) lacks positive antecedent basis.
In Claim 10, “the upper and lower parts” (line 2) lacks positive antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 2019/0237421 to Tsuchiya (hereinafter “Tsuchiya”).
Tsuchiya disclose a connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 11) comprising:
a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 13) formed to a specified length; and
the metal pillar comprising a solder layer (e.g. 16) on at least one region of an outer [top] surface, which comprises Sn, Cu, and Ag as an alloy (e.g. ¶ [0067]).
Whether or not the column-shaped metal pillar is “formed by cutting both ends of a metal wire” is insignificant to the extent that this cutting process has no impact on the final structure of the connecting pillar. See MPEP § 2113. Moreover, there are a whole host of processes, e.g. casting, etching, etc., that can form the final structure of the column-shaped metal pillar other than by cutting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, alternatively, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of U.S. Patent 6,971,160 to Welch et al (hereinafter “Welch”).
If for some reason it is believed that cutting somehow further limits the final structure of the column-shaped metal pillar, then Welch teaches that such a process is well-known and conventional. For example, Welch discloses that the shape of a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. Fig. 9A) can be formed by cutting a metal wire at both ends (e.g. col. 12, lines 15-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the column-shaped metal pillar of Tsuchiya with the cutting process of Welch, to provide a conventional and well-known process in shaping an art-recognized equivalent column-shaped metal pillar.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2019/0013285 to Murayama (hereinafter “Murayama”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch, discloses the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuchiya further teaches that the solder layer has a thickness of 5 µm (e.g. ¶ [0067]).
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not mention any specific weights for each of Ag, Cu and Sn.
Murayama discloses the structure of an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 15) where a column-shaped metal pillar includes a solder layer (e.g. 49a) with an alloy composition of Ag, Cu and Sn. Murayama teaches that the solder layer can have 3.5% wt of Ag, 0.5% wt of Cu, and 96% wt of Sn (e.g. ¶ [0162]) to electrically connect two components (e.g. 30c, 30b, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the solder layer of Tsuchiya with the weight percentages of each of Ag, Cu, Sn, as taught by Murayama, to form the very same solder layer of the column-shaped metal pillar and achieve the same purpose of electrically connecting two components.
Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch and Murayama, as applied to Claims 1 through 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2020/0365543 to Shah et al (hereinafter “Shah”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch and Murayama, disclose the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claims 1 through 3. Tsuchiya further teaches a Ni layer (e.g. 14, Fig. 11) that is between the column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 13) and the solder layer (e.g. 16).
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not mention that this Ni layer is a diffusion layer.
Shah discloses an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 2) that includes a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 45), solder layer (e.g. 44), and a diffusion layer of Ni (e.g. 50) that is located between the column-shaped metal pillar and the solder layer. The diffusion layer of Ni in Shah allows the diffusion of metal atoms from both the metal pillar and the solder layer (e.g. ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Ni layer of Tsuchiya is considered to be a diffusion layer, based on the properties taught by Shah having the same diffusion layer made of the same material and location in an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar.
Claim 5 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch, Murayama and Shah, as applied to Claims 1 through 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2016/0186294 to Maki et al (hereinafter “Maki”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch, Murayama and Shah, disclose the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claims 1 through 4. Tsuchiya further teaches that the column-shaped metal pillar can be formed from at least Cu (e.g. ¶ [0067]).
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not mention any values for electrical conductivity and Vickers hardness of the column-shaped metal pillar.
Maki teaches that a conductor utilizing a Cu alloy within electronic devices, with specific properties of an electrical conductivity of 80% IACS and a Vickers hardness of greater than 100 HV (e.g. ¶ [0057]), generally improves the overall yield strength of the conductor (e.g. ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the column-shaped metal pillar of Tsuchiya by utilizing the Cu alloy of Maki that includes the specific values for electrical conductivity and Vickers hardness, to improve the overall yield strength of the connecting pillar.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch, Murayama, Shah and Maki, as applied to Claims 1 through 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2020/0227377 to Liff et al (hereinafter “Liff”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch, Murayama, Shah and Maki, disclose the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claims 1 through 5.
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not mention any specific values for the diameter and height of the column-shaped metal pillar, or aspect ratio.
Liff discloses an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 21) where a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 134) specifically has a diameter of 300 µm and an aspect ratio (length or height/diameter) of 4 (e.g. 4:1, ¶ [0088]). Thus, having a diameter of 300 µm would mean having a diameter of 1200 µm based on the aspect ratio. For circuits in general, having such dimensions for a height and a diameter of the column-shaped metal pillar allows two electrical components (e.g. 153, 148) to be connected to each other (e.g. Fig. 21), which is the very same purpose of Tsuchiya.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the column-shaped metal pillar of Tsuchiya to the height, diameter, and aspect ratio taught by Liff, to form an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar have the same purpose of electrically connecting two components together.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch, Murayama, Shah, Maki and Liff, as applied to Claims 1 through 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent to 8,492,893 to Sohn et al (hereinafter “Sohn”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch, Murayama, Shah, Maki and Liff, disclose the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claims 1 through 7.
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not mention any specific values for a melting point of the column-shaped metal pillar.
Sohn discloses an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 2) where a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 120) has a melting point temperature of at least 900 ⁰C. Such a melting point allows a solder layer (e.g. 121) to be more easily connected to another component (e.g. 130, col. 3, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the column-shaped metal pillar of Tsuchiya with the melting point taught by Sohn, to provide an easier connection between the solder layer and another component.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Welch, Murayama, Shah, Maki, Liff and Sohn, as applied to Claims 1 through 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2019/0131266 to Aoki et al (hereinafter “Aoki”).
Tsuchiya, as modified by Welch, Murayama, Shah, Maki, Liff and Sohn, disclose the claimed connecting pillar, as relied upon above in Claims 1 through 8.
The modified Tsuchiya connecting pillar does not teach that the solder layer encases an entire outer surface of the column-shaped metal pillar.
Aoki discloses an art-recognized connecting pillar (e.g. Fig. 2B) that includes a column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. 126 or 122) and a solder layer (e.g. 124, Fig. 2D), where the solder layer encases an outer [top and side] surface of the column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. Fig. 2D, 2E).
Regarding Claim 10, Aoki further teaches that the solder layer surrounds upper [top] and lower [side and bottom] parts of the column-shaped metal pillar (e.g. Fig. 2E).
Again, such a connecting pillar allows two components (e.g. 310, 340, Fig. 4A) to be electrically connected to each other, which is the very same purpose of Tsuchiya.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the solder layer of Tsuchiya to the shape taught by Aoki, to form an art-recognized equivalent connecting pillar having the very same purpose of electrical connecting two components together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2019-134007, discloses another example of a metal connecting pillar (e.g. 13, Fig. 6) having a solder layer (e.g. 16, see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Dai et al., entitled "Newly developed in-situ formation of SnAg and SnAgCu solder on copper pillar bump", discloses another example of a metal conductive pillar (e.g. Fig. 1) with a solder layer made of an Sn, Cu, Ag alloy (e.g. Fig. 7, see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights