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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection as shown below:
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 17 recites the limitation “width of substrate trench” and “width of the chip-side insulating layer” The particular “width of substrate trench” and “width of the chip-side insulating layer” are indefinite because the “width of substrate trench” and the “width of the chip-side insulating layer” are not used or defined in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package” in lines 10-12, but there is no support for the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package.” For example, what is the width of substrate trench and what is the width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package in the specification. In other worlds, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. Note: drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as if depending on rejected claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “width of the at least one substrate trench is greater than twice the width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and the outer sidewall of the substrate package” in lines 4-6, but there is no support for the limitation of “width of the at least one substrate trench is greater than twice the width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and the outer sidewall of the substrate package.” For example, what is the width of substrate trench and what is the width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and the outer sidewall of the substrate package in the specification. In other worlds, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. Note: drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layers between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package” in lines 13-15, but there is no support for the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layers between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package.” For example, what is the width of substrate trench and what is the width of the chip-side insulating layers between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package in the specification. In other worlds, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. Note: drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
Claims 15-16 are rejected as if depending on rejected claim 14.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package” in lines 8-10, but there is no support for the limitation of “at least one substrate trench has a width greater than a width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package.” For example, what is the width of substrate trench and what is the width of the chip-side insulating layer between the at least one substrate trench and an outer sidewall of the substrate package in the specification. In other worlds, the disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. Note: drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as if depending on rejected claim 17.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights