CTNF 18/543,110 CTNF 77887 Attorney’s Docket Number: 252011-7601 Filing Date: 12/18/2023 Claimed Priority Date: 5/25/2019 (US 16/422,988) 8/14/2018 (US 62/718,556) Inventors: Shue et al. Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro DETAILED ACTION This Office action responds to the election filed on 4/18/2026. 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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e. , changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for a 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. Species Election Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, reading on figure 1C-1, in the reply filed on 4/18/2026, is acknowledged. The applicant indicated that claims 1-20 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 07-31-01 Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 9 and 11 recite, inter alia , a curved interface between the buffer layer and the bump. However, the originally filed specification does not describe, mention, or otherwise identify such a curved interface. While the drawings depict an interface between the buffer layer and the bump that appears curved (see, e.g. , FIG. 1C), the specification is entirely silent as to this feature. The specification does not describe the interface as curved, does not attribute any functional significance to such curvature, and does not disclose any structural or process-related details indicating that the curvature is a feature of the invention rather than an incidental or schematic illustration. The disclosure instead focuses on the buffering function of the shielding pad and the presence of the buffer layer, without any discussion of the geometry of the interface between the buffer layer and the bump. As such, there is no indication that the inventor was in possession of a curved interface as a claimed feature at the time of filing. Drawings alone may, in certain circumstances, provide adequate written description support. However, in this case, the mere depiction of a curved boundary in the figures, without any accompanying description or indication of its relevance, is insufficient to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed curved interface. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the subject matter of claims 9 and 11, and the claims fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US 2015/0179590)in view of Mohan (US 7,098,540) . Regarding claim 16, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a chip structure 1100 comprising: a substrate 1101 a dielectric layer 1102 over the substrate a bonding pad (BP) 1104 over the dielectric layer an insulating layer (IL) 1108 over the dielectric layer a buffer layer (BL) 1110 over the IL, and a bump 1112/1116/1126 over the BP wherein the dielectric layer, the IL and the BL have a continuous sidewall, and the BL extends into the IL at the sidewall. Fu, however, fails to show a shielding pad (SP) over the dielectric layer and surrounding the BP. Mohan, on the other hand, teaches that a SP 360 would offer both effective mechanical stress distribution and low parasitic capacitance. See, e.g. , col.3/ll.4-33 and figs. 2A and 4A. It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to include the SP of Mohan in the chip structure of Fu to effectively distribute mechanical stresses while reducing the parasitic capacitance. Regarding claim 17, Mohan (see, e.g. , fig. 2A) shows that a sidewall of the bump 240/250 is right over the SP 306 . Regarding claim 18, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows that the BL 1110 comprises first portion over the BP 1104 with a first thickness, and a second portion over the BP 1104 with a second thicknesses. The first thickness is different from the second thickness. Mohan (see, e.g. , fig. 2A) teaches that the first portion of the BL 230 is over the BP 370 and that the second portion of the BL is over the SP 360 . Regarding claim 19, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows that the buffer layer 1110 comprises a third portion with a third thickness, wherein the second portion is between the first and third portions, and the third thickness is greater than the second thickness. Regarding claim 20, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows that the third thickness is greater than the first thickness. Regarding claim 1, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a chip structure 1100 comprising: a substrate 1101 a redistribution layer RDL 1102 over the substrate a BP 1104 over the RDL an IL 1108 over the RDL, and a bump 1112/1116/1126 over the BP and IL wherein: the IL comprises a first part and a second part the first part surrounds the second part the first part has a first thickness, and the second part has a second thickness different from the first thickness Regarding claim 1, see the comments stated above in paragraphs 15-16 with respect to claim 16, which are considered repeated here. Regarding claim 2, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows the first thickness is greater than the second thickness. Regarding claim 3, Fu shows the IL 1108 further comprising a third part having a third thickness, the third part surrounds the first part, and the first and third thicknesses are different. Regarding claim 4, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows that the first thickness is greater than the third thickness. Regarding claim 7, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows the structure further comprising a BL 1110 over the IL 1108 , wherein the BL has a flat surface extending over the first, second and third parts of the IL 1108 . Regarding claim 5, Mohan (see, e.g. , fig. 4A) shows the structure further comprising a conductive line 420 under the third part. Regarding claim 6, Mohan (see, e.g. , fig. 4A) shows that, from a top view, the conductive line 420 is connected to the BP 370 and separated from the SP 360 . Regarding claim 8, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a chip structure 1100 comprising: A substrate 1101 A dielectric layer 1102 over the substrate A BP 1104 over the dielectric layer An IL 1108 over the dielectric layer A BL 1110 over the IL comprising: A first portion extending into the IL 1108 A second portion extending from the first portion and over the IL 1108 , and A third portion in contact with the BP 1104 , and A bump 1112/1116/1126 over the BP and the third portion Regarding claim 8, see the comments stated above in paragraphs 15-16 with respect to claim 16, which are considered repeated here. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fu (see, e.g., fig. 11) shows that the first and second portions of the BL 1110 are exposed from the bump. Regarding claim 14, Fu (see, e.g., fig. 11) shows that the IL 1108 is partially between the first and third portions of the BL 1110 . Regarding claim 15, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows that a flat surface extends across the first and second portions of the BL 1110 . Regarding claim 10, Fu (see, e.g. , fig. 11) shows the BL 1110 further comprising a fourth portion between the second and third portions and under the bump 1112 , wherein the fourth portion is over the IL 1108 . Regarding claims 9 and 11, Fu discloses a chip structure including a BL 1110 interfacing with a bump 1112/1116/1126 (see, e.g. , fig. 11). Fu, however, illustrates the interface as an inclined straight boundary, instead of the curved interface recited in the claims. This difference is not considered to impart patentable distinction. The claimed curved interface represents a geometric variation of the interface shape between the BL 1110 and the bump 1112/1116/1126 . Fu already teaches the same elements in contact and performing the same function, namely that the BL is positioned between the bonding pad 1104 and the bump, said BL is used in the art to absorb or buffer stress during bonding. Modifying the interface from an inclined or straight boundary to a curved boundary would have been an obvious matter of design choice or routine optimization, as the particular shape of the interface is a function of known fabrication processes ( e.g. , deposition, material flow, or reflow characteristics) and does not change the fundamental operation of the device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C) (a change in shape or form is generally considered an obvious matter of design choice where the claimed structure and the prior art perform the same function and solve the same problem). Furthermore, applicant has not provided evidence that the curved interface yields any critical or unexpected result relative to the interface shown in Fu. Where the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical in function, a difference in shape alone does not render the claim patentable absent a showing of criticality. See In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (a change in form or shape is generally considered an obvious matter of design choice); see also In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, to the extent the curvature results from known manufacturing processes, such a feature may be considered an inherent result of forming the buffer layer and bump using conventional techniques, and therefore does not distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP §2112; In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to applicant to show that the prior art does not inherently possess the claimed characteristic). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the interface in Fu to have a curved shape as recited in the claims. Conclusion Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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. /Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814 MDP/mdp May 1, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 2 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 3 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 4 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 5 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 6 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 7 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 8 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 9 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 18/543,110 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 10 Art Unit: 2814
Prosecution Insights