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 .
Specification
Specification amendments of Para [0010] made in Applicant Arguments dated 01/30/2026 are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 3-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 has been withdrawn.
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 10 and 12-15 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.
Regarding Claim 10, starting in the 17th line, it recites the limitation “after the dicing process, providing the wafer having the first die separated from the third die and the first die connected by the bridge to the third die to a pick and place operation”. It is unclear how the first die can be separated from the third die and at the same time be connected by the bridge to the third die. As there only prior reference to a bridge is a bridge between the first and third die, Examiner is unsure how to interpret this limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "…mounting the first die and the second die connected by the bridge…" in the 19th and 20th lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A bridge between the first and third die is cited in the claim but there is no prior recitation of a bridge between the first and second die.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9 and 26-32 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 1, Allowable subject matter has been indicated because the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the feature: “after performing the partial cut on the first scribe line and the partial cut on the second scribe line, performing a full cut on the second scribe line to remove the another bridge and singulate the third die; after performing the partial cut, using a first pick and place process for mounting the first die and the second die on a substrate, wherein the first die and the second die are connected by a portion of the first scribe line the bridge during the mounting; and after the full cut, using a second pick and place process for mounting the third die” along with the rest of the limitations of said claim.
Closest prior art of record, Wu et al. (US 2013/0049195 A1), teaches a wafer of die, and a dicing process to make partial cuts on scribe lines between the die to form a bridge connecting die. However Wu et al. fails to disclose performing a second full cut to separate sets of dies and after the partial cut using a pick and place method to mount die singulated die connected by the bridge and after the full cut using a second pick and place process to mount a third die.
Closest prior art of record, Chinnusamy (US 2017/0032981 A1), also teaches a wafer of die, and a dicing process to make partial cuts on scribe lines between the die to form a bridge connecting die. However Chinnusamy fails to disclose performing a second full cut to separate sets of dies and after the partial cut using a pick and place method to mount die singulated die connected by the bridge and after the full cut using a second pick and place process to mount a third die.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 26, Allowable subject matter has been indicated because the closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the feature: “after performing the first pass, performing a second pass with the saw blade to perform a full cut within each of a first subset of the plurality of scribe lines while maintaining the partial cut in a second subset of the plurality of scribe lines; and after performing the dicing process, providing the diced wafer to a pick and place operation, wherein the provided diced wafer has a plurality of singulated die adjacent the first subset of the plurality of scribe lines and a plurality of die groups including the second subset of the plurality of scribe lines, wherein each die group includes at least two die separated by one scribe line of the second subset of scribe lines” along with the rest of the limitations of said claim.
Closest prior art of record, Wu et al. (US 2013/0049195 A1), teaches a wafer of die, and a dicing process to make partial cuts on scribe lines between the die. However Wu et al. fails to disclose “after performing the first pass, performing a second pass with the saw blade to perform a full cut within each of a first subset of the plurality of scribe lines while maintaining the partial cut in a second subset of the plurality of scribe lines; and after performing the dicing process, providing the diced wafer to a pick and place operation, wherein the provided diced wafer has a plurality of singulated die adjacent the first subset of the plurality of scribe lines and a plurality of die groups including the second subset of the plurality of scribe lines, wherein each die group includes at least two die separated by one scribe line of the second subset of scribe lines”.
Closest prior art of record, Chinnusamy (US 2017/0032981 A1), also teaches a wafer of die, and a dicing process to make partial cuts on scribe lines between the die. However Chinnusamy fails to disclose “after performing the first pass, performing a second pass with the saw blade to perform a full cut within each of a first subset of the plurality of scribe lines while maintaining the partial cut in a second subset of the plurality of scribe lines; and after performing the dicing process, providing the diced wafer to a pick and place operation, wherein the provided diced wafer has a plurality of singulated die adjacent the first subset of the plurality of scribe lines and a plurality of die groups including the second subset of the plurality of scribe lines, wherein each die group includes at least two die separated by one scribe line of the second subset of scribe lines”.
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 PAUL A. BERRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5637. 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.
/PAUL A BERRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights