DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendment filed 10/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Election/Restrictions
As noted in the filing of the amendment on 4/8/26, the previous office action erred in noting the RCE filed 2/4/26 was informal or non-responsive. It is correct that the elected figure is figure 2A and the RCE claim amendments, were proper.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al., JP 2009-272494, in view of Lee et al., US 11,037,888.
Regarding claim 1, Aoki (see marked up figures 1-2 below) teaches a chip arrangement, comprising:
a chip 1 comprising a first main surface, wherein the first main surface comprises an active area 2, a chip termination portion 3, and at least one contact pad 6;
a first dielectric layer 10 covering the chip termination portion 3 and at least partially covering the active area 2, and at least partially exposing the at least one contact pad 6; and
a second dielectric layer 11 covering all of the first main surface [paragraph 0015] including covering the first dielectric layer 10 and the at least one contact pad 6.
Though Aoki fails to teach formed by atomic layer deposition, this is a process limitation in a product claim and therefore isn’t given patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
PNG
media_image1.png
554
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aoki, which teaches the first dielectric layer 10 only covers a portion of the chip termination portion 3, fails to teach the first dielectric layer covers all of the chip termination portion.
Lee (figure 1) teaches a first dielectric layer 50 covering all of the chip termination portion (region between 30 and edge), at least partially covering the active area 20, and at least partially exposing the at least one contact pad 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the configuration of Lee in the invention of Aoki because Lee teaches it is an known equivalent to the structure of Aoki. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Lee (figure 3) teaches a similar structure to Aoki in that the first dielectric layer 50 does not cover the entire chip termination portion (region between 20 and the edge of the chip 11), and Lee (figure 1) teaches the first dielectric layer 50 does cover all of the chip termination portion (region between 20 and the edge of the chip 11). Therefore a skilled artisan would see the equivalence between the two configurations.
With respect to claim 2, Aoki (figures 1-2) teaches the first dielectric layer 10 has a larger thickness than the second dielectric layer 11.
As to claim 3, Aoki teaches a material of the first dielectric layer [paragraph 0026] is different from a material of the second dielectric layer [paragraph 0041].
In re claim 4, Aoki [paragraph 0026] teaches the first dielectric layer 10 includes or consists of at least one of a group of materials, the group comprising: an organic material; an oxide; and a nitride.
Concerning claim 5, Aoki [paragraph 0041] teaches the second dielectric layer includes or consists of at least one of a group of materials, the group comprising: Al2O3; SiO2; HfO2; ZrO2; TiO2; Ta205; AIN; BN; TiN; TaN; and Si3N4.
Pertaining to claim 8, Aoki (paragraph 0038 teaches equal to or less than 5 nm) teaches a thickness of the second dielectric layer is in a range from about 2 nm to about 100 nm.
In claim 21, Aoki (see marked up figures 1-2 above) teaches a chip arrangement, comprising:
a chip 1 having a first main surface, the first main surface including an active area 2, a chip termination portion 3, and at least one contact pad 6 disposed over the active area 2;
a first dielectric layer 10 covering the chip termination portion 3, a portion of the active area 2, and a portion of the contact pad 6, wherein a portion of the at least one contact pad 6 is exposed from the first dielectric layer 10; and
a second dielectric layer 11 covering the first dielectric layer 10 and the at least one contact pad 6, including covering the portion of the contact pad 6 exposed from the first dielectric layer 10.
Though Aoki fails to teach formed by atomic layer deposition, this is a process limitation in a product claim and therefore isn’t given patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Aoki, which teaches the first dielectric layer 10 only covers a portion of the chip termination portion 3, also fails to teach the first dielectric layer covers all of the chip termination portion.
Lee (figure 1) teaches a first dielectric layer 50 covering all of the chip termination portion (region between 30 and edge), at least partially covering the active area 20, and at least partially exposing the at least one contact pad 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the configuration of Lee in the invention of Aoki because Lee teaches it is an known equivalent to the structure of Aoki. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Lee (figure 3) teaches a similar structure to Aoki in that the first dielectric layer 50 does not cover the entire chip termination portion (region between 20 and the edge of the chip 11), and Lee (figure 1) teaches the first dielectric layer 50 does cover all of the chip termination portion (region between 20 and the edge of the chip 11). Therefore a skilled artisan would see the equivalence between the two configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/17/26
Prosecution Insights