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 .
Applicants’ response of 9/8/26 has been considered and entered in the record. The rejection under 35 USC 112 and the rejection of Claims 17-20 under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments and arguments. The remaining rejections are modified to account for Applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner notes the amendment in Claim 1 differs from the proposed Claim limitations discussed in interview of 9/8/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al (US 10,553,489).
With respect to Claim 1, Huang et al discloses a semiconductor die (Figures 2 and 6-7)comprising: a first surface (top surface of die); a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom surface of die); and a first side surface, a second surface, a third side surface, and a fourth side surface between the first surface and the second surface (side surfaces of rectangular die between top surface and bottom surface), wherein the first side surface faces the third side surface and the second side surface faces the fourth side surface (opposite side surfaces of rectangular die face each other), and wherein a roughness of the second side surface is different between a central area (Claim 19 of Huang discloses the center area is free of saw tooth marks) of the second side surface and end portions of the second side surface (Claim 19 discloses side portions have different roughness) , the end portions being adjacent to first and second surfaces (inherent) and a roughness of at least a portion of the second side surface is greater than that of the first side surface (inherent that an arbitrary portion having saw tooth mark is rougher than an arbitrary portion which doesn’t). See Huang et al Claim 19, and Figures 2 and 6-7 and corresponding text, especially column 9, line 5 to column 10, line 10.
With respect to Claim 6, Huang et al discloses “the first side surface includes a roughness increasing portion having a roughness greater than that of the first side surface at a corner that is in contact with the second side surface”, as all of the side surfaces are in contact. See Claim 19 of Huang et al.
With respect to Claim 9, the first side surface and the third side surface have shapes corresponding to each other (rectangular). See Figures 2 and 6-7 of Huang et al.
With respect to Claim 10, the second side surface and the fourth side surface have shapes corresponding to each other (rectangular). See Figures 2 and 6-7 of Huang et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 10,553,489).
Huang et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Huang et al do not disclose “ at least some areas of the roughness increasing portion has a shape that is more concavely recessed toward a center of the first side surface than adjacent areas” (Claim 7); “each area of the first side surface has a roughness approximately corresponding to each other over an entirety of the first side surface” (Claim 8); “each area of the fourth side surface has a roughness approximately corresponding to each other over an entirety of the fourth side surface” (Claim 11); “the roughness of the first side surface approximately corresponds to that of the fourth side surface” (Claim 12).
With respect to Claims 7-8 and 11-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the presently claimed limitations, as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
October 7, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
