Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/480,516

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
SLUTSKER, JULIA
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Pico Semiconductor Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
808 granted / 1051 resolved
+8.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1105
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1051 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2017/0098589). Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor chip (Fig.1, numeral 200) in which a bonding pad (203) is formed in a wafer state (note: “is formed in a wafer state” is a product-by-process limitaiton...); a first passivation layer (205) formed on the semiconductor chip (200)to expose the bonding pad (203); a first re-distribution layer (102) connected to the bonding pad (203) and extending on the first passivation layer; (205) a conductive bump (122) disposed on an electrical signal path leading to the bonding pad (203), the first re-distribution layer (102), and a substrate ([0021]); and a capacitor (120) formed to be electrically connected ([0029]) to the first re-distribution layer (102) at a wafer level ([0020]) before the conductive bump (120) is formed (note: “before the conductive bump is formed” is a product-by-process limitation. And according to MPEP 2113, I “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the bonding pad includes first and second bonding pads (Fig.1, numeral 203), the first passivation layer (205) is formed on the semiconductor chip (200) to expose the first and second bonding pads (203), the first re-distribution layer includes first and second re-distribution lines (102b) which are respectively connected to the first and second bonding pads (203) and extend on the first passivation layer (205); the conductive bump (122) includes a first conductive bump disposed on a first electrical signal path leading to the first bonding pad (203), the first re-distribution line (102a), and the substrate ([0022]) and a second conductive bump (122) disposed on a second electrical signal path leading to the second bonding pad (203), the second re-distribution line (102a), and the substrate, and the capacitor (120) is electrically connected to the first and second re-distribution lines (102a) and disposed between the first and second conductive bumps (122) (Fig.1). Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses wherein the conductive bump is implemented as a solder bump or a Cu pillar bump ([0023]). Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device is implemented as a wafer-level package (WLP) or a wafer-level chip-scale package (WLCSP) ([0020]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2016/0268234). Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses: a second passivation layer formed on the first passivation layer (Fig.1, numeral 102a; note: lowest ILD layer; [0027]) and the first re-distribution layer (102b) to expose at least a part of the first re-distribution layer (102a); and wherein the first and second conductive bumps (122). Liu does not explicitly disclose a conductive member formed in a region in which the first re-distribution layer is exposed through the second passivation layer, that the capacitor is formed on and in contact with the conductive member. Lin however discloses that a conductive member (Fig.1, 324, 326) formed in a region in which the first re-distribution layer (210) is exposed through the second passivation layer (320), the capacitor (Fig.1, numeral 330) is formed on and in contact with the conductive member (324), (326). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Lin to have a conductive member formed in a region in which the first re-distribution layer is exposed through the second passivation layer, that the capacitor is formed on and in contact with the conductive member for the purpose of improving signal integrity performance of the semiconductor package assembly (Lin, [0025]). Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses a second passivation layer formed on the first passivation layer and the first re-distribution layer to expose at least a part of the first re-distribution layer; a second re-distribution layer formed in a region in which the first re- distribution layer is exposed through the second passivation layer; a third passivation layer formed on the second passivation layer and the second re-distribution layer to expose at least a part of the second re-distribution layer Liu does not explicitly disclose a conductive member formed in a region in which the second re-distribution layer is exposed through the third passivation layer, wherein the first and second conductive bumps and the capacitor are formed on and in contact with the conductive member. Lin however discloses that a conductive member (Fig.1, 324, 326, 328) formed in a region in which the first re-distribution layer (210) is exposed through the third passivation layer (320), wherein the first and second conductive bumps (322) and the capacitor (Fig.1, numeral 330) are formed on and in contact with the conductive member (324), (326), (328). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Lin to have a conductive member formed in a region in which the second re-distribution layer is exposed through the third passivation layer, wherein the first and second conductive bumps and the capacitor are formed on and in contact with the conductive member for the purpose of improving signal integrity performance of the semiconductor package assembly (Lin, [0025]). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of KR’893 (KR10-2008-0068983, Machine Translation is provided). Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses a second passivation layer (Fig.5, lower IMD layer [0027]) formed on the first passivation layer (205) and the first re-distribution layer (102) to expose at least a part of the first re-distribution layer (102b). Liu does not disclose (1) a second re-distribution layer formed in a region in which the first re- distribution layer is exposed through the second passivation layer; a third passivation layer formed on the second passivation layer and the second re-distribution layer to expose at least a part of the second re-distribution layer; and a conductive member formed in a region in which the second re-distribution layer is exposed through the third passivation layer and the first and second conductive bumps are formed on and in contact with the conductive member; (2) wherein the capacitor is formed on and in contact with the first re- distribution layer between the first passivation layer and the third passivation layer. Regarding elements (1), Liu discloses forming multiple IMD layers (102a) and multiple conductive traces (102b) ([0027]). Liu further discloses forming a conductive member in a region in which the re-distribution layer is exposed through the passivation layer and the first and second conductive bumps are formed on and in contact with the conductive member (Fig.5). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to form a second re-distribution layer formed in a region in which the first re- distribution layer is exposed through the second passivation layer; a third passivation layer formed on the second passivation layer and the second re-distribution layer to expose at least a part of the second re-distribution layer; and a conductive member formed in a region in which the second re-distribution layer is exposed through the third passivation layer and the first and second conductive bumps are formed on and in contact with the conductive member for the purpose of forming RDL structure (Liu, [0027]). Regarding elements (2), KR’893 however discloses wherein the capacitor is formed on and in contact with the first re- distribution layer between the first passivation layer and the third passivation layer ([0033]; Fig. 2). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with KR’893 to have the capacitor is formed on and in contact with the first re- distribution layer between the first passivation layer and the third passivation layer for the purpose of saving manufacturing cost (KR’983, [0031]). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 2014/0225223). Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses, and the first re-distribution line (102b) or the second re-distribution line (102b) is formed to be electrically connected to an additional conductive bump (122) in addition to the first conductive bump or the second conductive bump (Fig.5). Liu does not disclose wherein the first and second re- distribution lines function as multi-nodes of the capacitor. Zhu however discloses that the first and second re- distribution lines function as multi-nodes of the capacitor ([0031]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Zhu to have that the first and second re- distribution lines function as multi-nodes of the capacitor for the purpose of reducing the number of processing steps (Zhu, Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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. /JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598971
Conductive Via With Improved Gap Filling Performance
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598880
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598969
FLEXIBLE MONOMER FOR SMOOTH POLYMER SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588323
NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588480
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING BARRIER-METAL-FREE METAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE, AND BARRIER-METAL-FREE METAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1051 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month