DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed February 12, 2026. 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “at least a part of” the side surfaces that are not cleaved1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-3 are 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 …“a dividing line that defines a shape of the semiconductor device in a top view extends in a direction different from a {11-20} plane and a {1-100} plane of the semiconductor substrate”. As best understood, the dividing line is an imaginary line and is not part of the physical device. Therefore, the dividing line does not actually define a shape of the device, nor further structurally limit the claimed semiconductor device. The shape of the device in the top view, understood to be the same as the shape of the claimed substrate in the top view, is defined by the exposed side surfaces of the substrate, not by an imaginary line. According to Figs. 4 and 9, as best understood, the shape of the substrate is defined by the exposed zig-zagging crystal planes that make up the protruding and recessed side surfaces of the substrate. There is no disclosure of how an imaginary dividing line defines a shape of the device in a top view, further noting the disclosed dividing lines are straight lines (Fig. 9), however the sides of the substrate are not straight or planar. Moreover, inclusion of the dividing line is more of a process limitation than a structural limitation (also see MPEP §2113).
Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 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 1 recites …“a dividing line that defines a shape of the semiconductor device in a top view extends in a direction different from a {11-20} plane and a {1-100} plane of the semiconductor substrate”. As best understood, the dividing line is an imaginary line and is not part of the physical device, and therefore does not define a shape of the device. It is unclear how the recited dividing line further defines the claimed device. An arbitrary “dividing line” can be drawn in any direction and still be construed as defining at least some part of an unknown/arbitrary shape of a device, e.g. if the line is a straight line and the device has a shape comprising surfaces that also include straight lines, then this line can be construed as defining said shape as claimed. Since multiple imaginary dividing lines could be drawn across the same device outline, the limitation does not actually narrow the device in a well-defined way.
As best understood, the dividing line is an imaginary line and is not part of the physical device. Therefore, it is unclear how the dividing line actually defines a shape of the device. From the context of amended claim 1, it does not appear that the “dividing line” further structurally limits the claimed semiconductor device. The shape of the device in the top view, understood to be the same as the shape of the claimed substrate in the top view, is defined by the exposed side surfaces of the substrate, not by an imaginary line. According to Figs. 4 and 9, as best understood, the shape of the substrate is defined by the exposed zig-zagging crystal planes that make up the protruding and recessed side surfaces of the substrate.
Next, amended claim 1 does not recite a specific “a direction” or “a plane”. Therefore, the recited limitation of the dividing line “extends in a direction different from a…plane” is unclear. The claims do not define what is supposed to be a direction from a plane nor what is considered a direction different from a plane. A top view “dividing line” extends in a direction different from a crystal plane mixes a line direction with crystallographic planes. Directions, as best understood in this context are along lines, it is unclear what direction a plane is supposed to have, or how one is to compare a line direction to a direction from a plane, or a direction different from a plane. If a direction “from a plane” implies some direction away from the plane, it is unclear what would be considered a direction “different from a plane”. The claimed “different from” is also unclear as this includes a very small angular deviation, e.g. <0.00000001°. The subjective degree of “different from” is not clear. One may desire to dice a substrate along specific crystal planes and may still be off by a tiny fraction of a degree. It is unclear if a slight, unintentional, misalignment infringes on “different from”. It is unclear what tolerance applies for wafer miscut or measurement uncertainty. It is further unclear if parallel-but-opposite planes also count as “different”.
The phrase “defines a shape of the semiconductor device in a top view” is unclear with respect to which part of the device corresponds to the claimed shape, as this may pertain to the sidewalls of the substrate, or other device features such as electrodes, pads, interconnect structures, etc., not shown by Applicant (Fig. 2), however various shapes are known to be present in top views of conventional semiconductor devices2.
If a shape of the device in the top view is understood to be the same as the shape of the claimed substrate in the top view, then the shape of the device is defined by the exposed side surfaces of the substrate, not by an imaginary line. According to Figs. 4 and 9, as best understood, the shape of the substrate is defined by the exposed zig-zagging crystal planes that make up the protruding and recessed side surfaces of the substrate. There is no disclosure of how an imaginary dividing line defines a shape of the device in a top view, further noting the dividing lines are straight lines (Fig. 9), however the sides of the substrate are not actually planar or straight. It is further noted the dividing lines appear to be perpendicular, however Fig. 4 appears to show a “corner” that is clearly not at 90°. Consequently, it is unclear how the imaginary dividing lines define a shape of the device in a top view.
Claim 8 recites “at least a part of each of the side surfaces is a cleaved surface that is cleaved along a dividing line having a direction different from a {11-20} plane and a {1-100} plane of the semiconductor substrate”.
Claim 8 similarly recites a dividing line and a direction different from a…plane and these limitations have the same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Addressing the drawing objection and §112 rejections above should place the application in condition for allowance.
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
1 The recited “at least a part of” includes parts of the side surfaces that are not a cleaved surface. According to the specification, the substrate is cleaved along all sides of each device which is what exposes the protruding and recessed side surfaces corresponding to the plurality of crystal planes. The figures only show cleaved sides.
2 e.g. see Fig. 2 in Kusunoki (US 2007/0176181)
Prosecution Insights