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 Species IV and Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 5 recites that “a bonding rib is formed on the bonding layer”. However, there are no additional layers being formed on the bonding layer (143, Fig. 12A).
Therefore, the feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “142” has been used to designate both the UBM layer and the bonding layer in Fig. 12B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5-6 and 8 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.
Claim 5 recites that “a bonding rib is formed on the bonding layer” in line 1. However, there are no additional layers being formed on the bonding layer (143, Fig. 12A). Hence the claim is indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “wherein -- the bonding layer forms a bonding rib -- located on the UBM layer”, as disclosed in para [0037] of the original specification.
Claim 6 recites that “the raiser of each of the plurality of composite bumps is connected to the raiser of the adjacent composite bump along the direction parallel to the surface of the body.” Claim 6 depends from claim 4 where each composite bumps (140, Fig. 11) has a raiser (141, Fig. 11) and has a defined width, and are separated from the adjacent raiser. It appears that claim 6 is directed to a different embodiment (Fig. 10), where the raiser is a single continuous structure. However, it is unclear how the applicant is defining each individual raiser of each composite bump (as required in claim 6), when there is only one continuous raiser encompassing all the composite bumps. Hence, claim 6 in indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, the raiser will be treated as a single continuous structure encompassing a plurality of composite bumps as shown in Fig. 10.
Claim 8 recites the limitation wherein “the raiser of each of the plurality of composite bumps is connected to the raiser of the adjacent composite bump.” Claim 8 depends from claim 7 where each composite bumps (140, Fig. 11) has a raiser (141, Fig. 11) and has a defined width, and are separated from the adjacent raiser. It appears that claim 8 is directed to a different embodiment (Fig. 10), where the raiser is a single continuous structure. However, it is unclear how the applicant is defining each individual raiser of each composite bump (as required in claim 8), when there is only one continuous raiser encompassing all the composite bumps. Hence, claim 8 in indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, the raiser will be treated as a single continuous structure encompassing a plurality composite bumps as shown in Fig. 10.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2020/0266164 A1).
Re Claim 1, Kwon teaches a chip comprising:
a body (102, Figs. 8A-8B, para [0024]);
a plurality of bond pads (104, Figs. 8A-8B, para [0024]) disposed on the body (102);
a protective layer (106, see Fig. 3F for cross-sectional view, para [0024]) configured to cover a surface of the body (102) and including a plurality of openings (opening in 106 above the bond pad 104, marked “opening” in annotated Fig. 3F below),
each of the plurality of openings (“opening”, see annotated Fig. 3F below) is configured to expose one of the plurality of bond pads (104); and
a plurality of composite bumps (120c+152a+154a+156a, Figs. 8A-8B, also see Fig. 3F for cross-sectional view, paras [0034] – [0037] and [0047]) each electrically connected to one of the plurality of bond pads (104) and including a raiser (120c), a under metal metallization (UBM) layer (152a+154a) and a bonding layer (156a), the raiser is non-conductive (120c is resin layer which is non-conductive, para [0047]) and covered by the UBM layer (152a+154a, see Figs. 8A-8B and 3F), the UBM layer (152a+154a) is electrically connected (see Fig. 3F) to the plurality of bond pads (104) and covered by the bonding layer (156a), the bonding layer (156a) is electrically connected to the UBM layer (152a+154a) and is configured to be electrically connected to a contact pad of a substrate (156a is configured as claimed, see Fig. 3F. Examiner notes that this limitation relates to intended use and does not require an attached contact pad of a second substrate. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. “Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Kwon teaches the chip in accordance with claim 1, wherein the raiser (120c, Figs. 8A-8B and 3F) of each of the plurality of composite bumps is disposed on the protective layer (106, see Fig. 3F) or one of the plurality of bond pads.
Re Claim 4, Kwon teaches the chip in accordance with claim 2, wherein the raiser (120c, Figs. 8A-8B) is a rib extended in a direction (horizontal direction, Fig. 8A) parallel to the surface of the body (see Fig. 8A), each of the plurality of openings has a first width (marked “w1” in annotated Figs. 8A-8B below) and the raiser has a second width (marked “w2” in annotated Figs. 8A-8B below) which is greater than or equal to the first width (“w2” is greater than “w1”, see annotated Figs. 8A-8B below, also see Fig. 4 for a top-view), the UBM layer (152a+154a) located on the raiser (120c) has a third width (marked “w3” in annotated Figs. 8A-8B below) which is less than or equal to the second width (“w3” is equal to “w2”, see annotated Figs. 8A-8B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
323
817
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 5, Kwon teaches the chip in accordance with claim 4, wherein the bonding layer (156a, Figs. 8A-8B) forms a bonding rib (see Figs. 8A-8B, also see 112(b) rejection above on how the limitation is treated) located on the UBM layer (152a+154a) and has a fourth width (marked “w4” in annotated Figs. 8A-8B above) along the direction parallel to the surface of the body, the fourth width is greater than or equal to the third width of the UBM layer (“w4” is equal to “w3”, see annotated Figs. 8A-8B above).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2020/0266164 A1), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2007/0210457 A1).
Re Claim 3, Kwon teaches the chip in accordance with claim 2, wherein the raiser is (120c, Figs. 8A-8B) fully covered by the UBM layer (152a+154a, see Fig. 3F for cross-sectional view) located on the raiser, and the UBM layer (152a+154a) is fully covered by the bonding layer (156a, see Fig. 3F).
Kwon does not disclose that the raiser and the plurality of composite bumps are pyramids or cones extended in a direction vertical to the body.
Related art Lin discloses that the raiser (32, Figs. 7-10, para [0036]) and the composite bumps (32+36, Figs. 7-10, para [0037]) can have a variety of shapes including a hemispherical shape (Fig. 7), similar to Kwon, or can be cone-shaped (see Figs. 9-10), as recited in the claim limitation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the raiser and the composite bumps can have a variety of shapes, including a hemispherical-shaped or a cone-shaped structure as disclosed by Lin. The selection of a known structure based on its suitability for its intended use of forming a composite bump structure supports a prima facie obviousness determination as established in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2020/0266164 A1).
Re Claim 6, Kwon teaches the chip in accordance with claim 5, wherein the raiser (120c, Figs. 8A-8B) of each of the plurality of composite bumps (120c+152a+154a+156a, Figs. 8A-8B) are separated from each other and does not show that it is connected to the raiser of the adjacent composite bump along the direction parallel to the surface of the body.
However, in a separate embodiment in Figs. 6A-6B, Kwon discloses that the raiser can be a one continuous structure encompassing all the composite bumps. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results, that the raisers of each of the composite bumps can be separated or can form a single continuous structure as disclosed by Kwon. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue both the known options and reach the claimed limitation with anticipated success, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Rejection 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2007/0210457 A1) and further in view of Taguchi et al. (US 6465879 B1).
Re Claim 1, Lin teaches a chip (Fig. 13J) comprising:
a body (30, Fig. 13J, para [0036]);
a bond pad (26, Fig. 13J, para [0036]) disposed on the body (30);
a protective layer (28, Fig. 13J, para [0036]) configured to cover a surface of the body (30, see Fig. 13J) and include an opening (opening in layer 28 above the pad 26, see Fig. 13J),
the opening is configured to expose the bond pad (26, see Fig. 13J); and
a composite bump (32+36, Fig. 13J, paras [0036] – [0037]) each electrically connected to the bond pad (26, Fig. 13J) and including a raiser (32, Fig. 13J), a under metal metallization (UBM) layer (36, Fig. 13J), the raiser is non-conductive (32 is made of polymer material which is non-conductive, para [0036]) and covered by the UBM layer (36, Fig. 13J), the UBM layer (36) is electrically connected to the bond pad (26).
Lin does not explicitly disclose a plurality of bond pads, a plurality of openings and a plurality of composite bumps.
Related art Taguchi discloses an example where the chip structure has multiple composite bonds (see Fig. 5), including a plurality of bond pads and a plurality of openings (see Fig. 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results that there will be plurality of composite bumps along with plurality of bond pads and a plurality of openings in the device of Lin as disclosed by Taguchi, because that will provide multiple routes for electrical communications between two bonded chips allowing faster processing and communications.
Lin also does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 13J that the composite bump includes a bonding layer, and thus does not disclose that the UBM layer is covered by the bonding layer and that the bonding layer is electrically connected to the UBM layer and is configured to be electrically connected to a contact pad of a substrate.
However, in another embodiment in Fig. 14, Lin discloses a composite bump that includes an additional bonding layer (52, Fig. 14, para [0050]) which covers the UBM layer (32, Fig. 14) and the bonding layer (52) is electrically connected to the UBM layer (32) and is configured to be electrically connected to a contact pad of a substrate (52 is configured as claimed, see Fig. 14. Examiner notes that this limitation relates to intended use and does not require an attached contact pad of a second substrate. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. “Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent unexpected results that the composite bump of the embodiment of Fig. 13J of Lin can further include a bonding layer as disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 14, as that would further improve the bonding process, thus improving reliability and performance.
Re Claim 2, Lin modified by Taguchi teaches the chip in accordance with claim 1, wherein the raiser (32, Fig. 13J, Lin) of each of the plurality of composite bumps is disposed on the protective layer (28, Fig. 13J) or one of the plurality of bond pads (26, Fig. 13J).
Re Claim 7, Lin modified by Taguchi teaches the chip in accordance with claim 2, wherein the raiser (32, Fig. 13J, Lin) of each of the plurality of composite bumps is a rib extended in a direction parallel to the surface of the body (32 extends like a rib parallel to the surface of 30, see Fig. 13J) and is across one of the plurality of openings (see Fig. 13J).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is allowable for at least the reasons of, “wherein the raiser of each of the plurality of composite bumps is connected to the raiser of the adjacent composite bump”. Lin et al. (US 2007/0210457 A1) modified by Taguchi et al. (US 6465879 B1), as applied in the rejection of claim 7 (from which claim 8 depends on) fails to teach the above limitation. Related art, Kwon et al. (US 2020/0266164 A1) discloses an embodiment (Figs. 6A-6B) where the raiser is a continuous single structure encompassing a plurality of composite bumps, teaching the above limitation. However, in Examiner’s opinion, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above prior arts to reach the limitation of claim 8 when viewed in context of the independent claim 1 and intervening dependent claims 2 and 7, as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights