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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on November 22nd, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the search and examination of Groups I-III claims cannot impose a serious burden on the examiner”. This is not found persuasive. The restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction /election requirement, mailed on 09/25/2025, is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Non-elected invention, claims 17-30 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-16 as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/08/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama (US 2003/0006795, hereinafter as Asay ‘795).
Regarding Claim 1, Asay ‘795 teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a semiconductor wafer having a substrate having a scribe line area (Fig. 1, (SL); [0079]), a first die area and a second die area (CP; [0078]), wherein the first die area and the second die area (CP) are separated by the scribe line area (SL) extending along a first direction; and
a test structure disposed in the scribe line area, comprising: a test device (Fig. 2B, (TEG); [0082]) having a physical characteristic similar to a semiconductor device fabricated in the first die area or the second die area (see Fig. 8; [0116]); and
a first test pad (BP2; [0088]) electrically connected to the test device (TEG; [0088]).
Thus, Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction”.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a first distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2A and 2B (Asay ‘795)
Regarding Claim 2, Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the first distance gradually increases from a center region to a peripheral region of the first test pad”.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first distance gradually increases from a center region to a peripheral region of the first test pad on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first distance gradually increases from a center region to a peripheral region of the first test pad when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 6, Asay ‘795 teaches the first test pad has a first dimension along the first direction.
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the first dimension gradually changes along a second direction that is different from the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first dimension gradually changes along a second direction that is different from the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first dimension gradually changes along a second direction that is different from the first direction when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 7, Asay ‘795 teaches the first dimension has a minimum value in a position closest to the first die area in a plan view (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Asay ‘795 teaches the first test pad (BP2) has a second dimension along the second direction.
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second dimension gradually changes along the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second dimension gradually changes along the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the second dimension gradually changes along the first direction when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 11, Asay ‘795 teaches the first test pad (BP2) has at least one edge with an extended line meeting a first edge of the first die area (see Fig. 8).
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “an angle between the extended line and the first edge of the first die area is an acute angle”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an angle between the extended line and the first edge of the first die area is an acute angle on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an angle between the extended line and the first edge of the first die area is an acute angle when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 12, Asay ‘795 teaches a second test pad arranged beside the first test pad along the first direction (see Fig. 2B)
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a second distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the second test pad gradually changes in a second direction that is different from the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a second distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the second test pad gradually changes in a second direction that is different from the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a second distance between adjacent edge portions of the first test pad and the second test pad gradually changes in a second direction that is different from the first direction when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 13, Asay ‘795 teaches a second test pad (BP2) (see Fig. 2B)
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second distance gradually increases from the center region to the peripheral region of the first test pad”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second distance gradually increases from the center region to the peripheral region of the first test pad on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the second distance gradually increases from the center region to the peripheral region of the first test pad when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 14, Asay ‘795 teaches the test device (TEG) is disposed between the first test pad and the second test pad in a plan view (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 15, Asay ‘795 teaches the test device (TEG).
Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a distribution area of the test device is tapered toward to the first test pad in a plan view”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a distribution area of the test device is tapered toward to the first test pad in a plan view on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. . In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a distribution area of the test device is tapered toward to the first test pad in a plan view when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 16, Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a third distance between adjacent edge portions of the distribution area of the test device and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a third distance between adjacent edge portions of the distribution area of the test device and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a third distance between adjacent edge portions of the distribution area of the test device and the first die area gradually changes in the first direction when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Claims 3-5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asay ‘795 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao (US 2012/0092033, hereinafter as Shao ‘033).
Regarding Claim 3, Asay ‘795 teaches the first test pad has a square corner (BP2).
Thus, Asay ‘795 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the first test pad has a rounded corner or an obtuse corner”.
Shao ‘033 teaches the first test pad has a rounded corner or an obtuse corner (see para. [0018]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Asay ‘795 by having the first test pad has a rounded corner or an obtuse corner for the purpose of ascertaining the occurrence of cracking (see para. [0043]) as suggested by Shao ‘033.
Regarding Claim 4, Shao ‘033 teaches the first test pad has a shape comprising a polygonal shape with more than four sides (polygonal shape) or a circular shape (round shape) (see para. [0018]).
Regarding Claim 5, Shao ‘033 teaches the first test pad has 2-fold rotational symmetry, which is a 180-degree rotation around a geometric center of the first test pad, in a plan view (see para. [0018]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 2-fold rotational symmetry shape for the test pad on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Shao ‘033 teaches the first test pad is tapered from a center region to a peripheral region of the first test pad (polygonal shape, see para. [0018]). It would obviously appear that the polygonal shape is tapered from a center region to a peripheral region.
Regarding Claim 10, Asay ‘795 teaches the second dimension has a minimum value at a position closest to the test device (TEG) in a plan view (see Fig. 2A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Sheng et al. (US 2022/0005775 A1)
Yoon et al. (US 2022/0077073 A1)
Sim et al. (US 2020/0168556 A1)
Ding et al. (US 2017/0207137 A1)
Wann et al. (US 2015/0076499 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893