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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 07/31/2025 in response to the Office Action mailed on 05/01/2025 is being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-37 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 18 - 20, drawn to an electronic die, classified in HO1L 23/528
Claims 21 - 37, drawn to a method of manufacturing an electronic die, classified in HO1L 21/3043
Inventions I and Il are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process that does not require the particulars of Invention II (Claims 21-37, in particular Claim 32). For example, after depositing the insulating layer 33 on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate 11 (see Fig. 8 of originally filed disclosure) and filling the plurality of first trenches 31 with the insulating layer 33 (see Fig. 9 of originally filed disclosure), instead of forming a plurality of second trenches 35 on the second surface of the semiconductor substrate 11 as recited in process Claim 12 (see Fig. 10 of originally filed disclosure), the product in Claim 18 can be made by forming a plurality of second trenches 35 on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate 11, with the second trenches 35 overlapping the first trenches 31 and extending all the way through the insulating layer 33, followed by polishing off the remainder of the substrate 11 extending from the end of the second trenches 35 to the second surface of the semiconductor substrate 11.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-37 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, paragraph 2 of the remarks, filed on 07/31/2025, with respect to the title of the invention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the title of the invention has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the remarks, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claim 18, Applicant argues that Fallourd fails to teach or suggest that the contact pads 15 are exposed to outside the structure. This argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejections is made as below in view of
On page 8 of the remarks, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claim 18, Applicant argues that Fallourd fails to teach or suggest the following:
a structure in which each semiconductor die including one of the integrated circuits 17 includes the metal contact pads 15 on a surface of the semiconductor die distal from the protective resin layer 23 and the back resin layer 29,
wherein each electrical contact structure of the metal contact pads 15 includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and wherein the first surface of each electrical contact structure contacts a surface of the semiconductor die distal from the protective resin layer and the back resin layer 29
and the second surface of each electrical contact structure is exposed to outside of the structure.
While arguments a) and c) are persuasive, argument b) is not. MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 18 in light of the specification, the term “contact” can mean direct or indirect physical contact through any intermediate layers. As such, Fallourd does teach wherein each electrical contact structure of the metal contact pads 15 includes a first surface (say bottom surface of contact pads 15 in the orientation of Fig. 10) and a second surface opposite the first surface (say top surface of contact pads 15 in the orientation of Fig. 10), and wherein the first surface (bottom surface) of each electrical contact structure does contact a surface (top surface) of the semiconductor die through the conductive layer 13, and the top surface of the semiconductor die is distal from both portion 23 and portion 29 of the electrically insulating layer 23, 29. Therefore, the 102 rejection of Claim 18 over Fallourd is withdrawn for failing to teach all of the limitations of Claim 18. However, Fallourd is still relied upon to teach the above limitation and a new ground of 103 rejection is made as below in view of
On page 8 of the remarks, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of dependent Claims 19 and 20, Applicant argues Claims 19 and 20 are allowable due to their dependency on Claim 18. The 102 rejection of Claims 19 and 20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejections is made as below in view of
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of remarks, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the allowability of the newly added claims 21-37 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As stated earlier, newly added Claims 21-37 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 18-20 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 18 recites the limitation “metal contact pads 15” in lines 5 and 7. However, it is not clear as to what the index 15 after the metal contact pads refers to. Furthermore, in the specification, the metal contact pads are indexed as 17 (See page 5, lines 26-29 of the originally filed disclosure).
For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be read as “metal contact pads”, devoid of the index.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "each electrical contact structure " in lines 6, 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be read in the present form.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected as they are dependent upon Claim 18.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallourd et al. (CN 112908935 A), in view of Shim et al. (US 20150179587 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Fallourd et al. teaches a structure, comprising:
an electrically insulating layer 23, 29 (Fig. 10: 23, 29, paragraphs 0096, 0112, 0113 in English Translation of Fallourd);
Note that the insulating layers 23 and 29 are formed of the same protective resin material (paragraph 0113 in English translation of Fallourd et al.)
a semiconductor substrate 11 including a plurality of semiconductor dies 17 in a first direction (say x-axis pointing to the right of Fig. 10) on the electrically insulating layer 23, 29 (Fig. 10: 11, 17, 23, 29, paragraphs 0020, 0087 in English Translation of Fallourd),
each semiconductor die 17 of the plurality of semiconductor dies 17 including metal contact pads 15 on a surface of the semiconductor die 17 (Fig.10: 15, 17, paragraph 0088 in English Translation of Fallourd),
each electrical contact structure of the metal contact pads 15 including a first surface (say bottom surface of contact pad 15 in the orientation of Fig. 10) and a second surface opposite the first surface (say top surface of contact pad 15 in the orientation of Fig. 10),
the first surface of each electrical contact structure contacting the surface of the semiconductor die 17 distal from the electrically insulating layer 23, 29.
(According to Fig. 10, the top surface of contact pads 15 contacts the top surface of the semiconductor die 17 through the conductive layer 13 and is distal from portion 23 and portion 29 or the electrically insulating layer 23, 29)
and a plurality of first trenches 33 on a surface of the semiconductor substrate 11, wherein the plurality of first trenches 33 separate the plurality of semiconductor dies 17 from one another in a second direction (say z-axis pointing in the thickness direction) that transverses the first direction (x-axis) (Fig. 10: 33, 11, 17, paragraph 0116 in English Translation of Fallourd).
Fallourd et al. fails to explicitly teach:
the metal contact pads 15 are on a surface of the semiconductor die 17 distal from the electrically insulating layer 23, 29
and the second surface of each electrical contact structure of the metal contact pads 15 being exposed to outside of the structure
However, Shim et al. teaches a structure comprising metal contact pads 134 on a surface 136 of the semiconductor die 130 distal from the electrically insulating layer 138 and the second surface of each electrical contact structure of the metal contact pads 134 being exposed to outside of the structure (Fig. 3e: 134, 136, 130, 138, paragraph 0038 0039, 0040).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the teachings of Fallourd et al. and Shim et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would expose the contact pads, thereby facilitating electrical contact with other external connections, as recognized by Shim et al. (paragraph 0041).
Note that Claim 18 is examined based on the interpretation provided under the 112(b) rejection provided above.
Regarding Claim 19, Fallourd et al. teaches wherein the electrically insulating layer 23, 29 is between two semiconductor dies 17 of the plurality of semiconductor dies 17 in the second direction (z-axis) (see Fig. 10: 23, 29, 17).
Regarding Claim 20, Fallourd et al. teaches wherein the plurality of first trenches 33 each extends into the electrically insulating layer 23, 29 (see Fig. 10: 33, 23, 29, paragraph 0116 in English Translation of Fallourd).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/10/2025
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 August 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights