DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed December 1, 2025. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of amended claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-12, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Schulze et al. (US 2014/0024595), of record.
(Re Claim 5) Schulze teaches an electronic component, which comprises (see Figs. 2A-6 and supporting text):
a semiconductor body (¶30, 100);
an active region in and on a central portion of the semiconductor body, wherein the active region extends vertically through the entire semiconductor body (see Figs. 2A, 5D, and 6, ¶50: device 500 may be a vertical device); and
a sidewall lining covering at least part of a sidewall of the semiconductor body (110);
wherein the sidewall lining comprises another material than the semiconductor body (¶35); and
wherein a closing structure extends laterally from an upper portion of the sidewall lining of the semiconductor body such that the sidewall lining is disposed between the closing structure and the semiconductor body, the closing structure having an exterior surface facing away from the sidewall lining in the form of a breaking edge (closing structure 507, remnants thereof unlabeled in Fig. 4C showing the exposed sidewall after dicing, ¶60, breaking edge at bottom/left).
(Re Claim 7) comprising a discontinuity in an interface region between the breaking edge and the sidewall lining apart from the breaking edge, wherein the discontinuity comprises one of at least a step and a sawtooth structure (Fig. 4C).
(Re Claim 8) wherein the sidewall lining comprises an electrically insulating material (¶35, silicon oxide).
(Re Claim 10) having a rectangular outline with sharp corners or having an outline with rounded corners (see Figs. 2B-2C, the dies are rectangular with 90 deg corners).
(Re Claim 11) configured as electronic component with vertical current flow (Figs. 2A, 5D, and 6, ¶50: vertical devices).
(Re Claim 12) wherein an exterior surface of a lower portion of the sidewall of the electronic component is a further breaking edge (Fig. 4C).
(Re Claim 23) the closing structure disposed laterally beyond the vertically extending sidewall lining apart from the closing structure (see Figs. 4B-4C).
(Re Claim 24) Schulze teaches an electronic component comprising (see Figs. 2A-6 and supporting text): a semiconductor body (¶30, 100); an active region in and on a central portion of the semiconductor body (Figs. 2A, 5D, and 6, ¶50: vertical devices); a sidewall lining (110) covering at least part of a sidewall of the semiconductor body (Fig. 4C); and a closing structure extending laterally from an upper portion of the sidewall lining of the semiconductor body such that the sidewall lining is disposed between the closing structure and the semiconductor body, the closing structure having an exterior surface facing away from the sidewall lining that defines a breaking edge (closing structure 507, remnants thereof unlabeled in Fig. 4C showing the exposed sidewall after dicing, ¶60, breaking edge at bottom/left).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (US 2014/0024595) as applied above, and further in view of Carney et al. (US 2021/0343615), all of record.
(Re Claim 9) wherein a vertical thickness of the semiconductor body is in a range from 10 µm to 60 µm.
Schulze is silent regarding the vertical thickness of the thinned device. A PHOSITA may be motivated to look to related art to teach suitable thicknesses for Schulze’s thinned device. Related art from Carney teaches thinning the device wafer to 50 µm or less (¶55). A PHOSITA would recognize advantages of thin devices include improved heat dissipation and smaller sizes allowing for smaller packages. In view of the prior art, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the devices having thickness within the claimed range.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (US 2014/0024595), as applied above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2015/0214077) and Du et al. (US 2022/0122885), all of record.
(Re Claim 21) wherein a roughness at the breaking edge is different from a roughness of the sidewall lining apart from the breaking edge.
(Re Claim 22) wherein the roughness at the breaking edge is higher than a roughness of the sidewall lining apart from the breaking edge.
Schulze is silent regarding roughness. A PHOSITA would recognize the lining 110 will obviously have a different, lower, ‘as-grown’ roughness where it is not damaged by a dicing blade or laser dicing (¶60 and Fig. 4C). Tsai recognizes laser dicing causes surface roughness (¶¶28,31). Du recognizes blade dicing causes surface roughness (see Figs. 3C-3D and ¶¶96-104). The horizontal ends of 110 and 507 will obviously have a higher roughness due to the damage caused by a dicing blade or a laser than the ‘as-grown’ silicon oxide which will be relatively smooth in comparison.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898