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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12 and 17-20) in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 17-20 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.
Claims 1 and 17 comprise the phrase “a roughness of the second side surface varies according to area”. The phrase is indefinite as specific areas are not determined, and any two areas on any surface which can be selected at the nanometer level can contain different roughness, if the areas are selected with the goal of providing a greater or lesser relative roughness. As the metes and bounds of the Claims cannot properly ascertained, the Claims are properly rejected as being indefinite. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-12 and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1 and 17 respectively.
Claims 8 and 12 comprise the term “approximately”. The metes and bounds of the Claims are not properly ascertained as the term “approximately” is a relative term. Therefore, the Claims are properly rejected as being indefinite.
Claims 8-12 and 18-20 comprise the terms “corresponding” or “correspond”. The metes and bounds of the Claims are not properly ascertained as the term “corresponding” or “correspond” are relative terms . Therefore, the Claims are properly rejected as being indefinite.
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 , 9-10 and 17-20 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 varies according to area (center is rougher), and a roughness of at least a portion of the second side surface is greater than that of the first side surface (center of second side surface is free of cracks). See 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.
With respect to Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected for the reasons as discussed with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, Huang et al disclose a package substrate; an interposer mounted on the package substrate; and a semiconductor chip mounted on the interposer. See column 9, lines 1-20. Furthermore, with respect to the limitation “at least some of the second side surface has cracks therein and has a roughness greater than that of the first side surface, and a roughness of the second side surface varies according to area”, the limitation is disclosed in Claim 19 of Huang et al. See Claim 19 of Huang et al (saw tooth marks being considered cracks).
With respect to Claim 18, and the limitation the first side surface and the third side surface have a shape corresponding to each other (rectangular). See Figures 2 and 6-7 of Huang et al.
With respect to Claim 19, and the limitation the second side surface and the fourth side surface have a shape corresponding to each other (rectangular). See Figures 2 and 6-7 of Huang et al.
With respect to Claim 20, and the limitation “the cracks are arranged along a direction intersecting a direction in which the first surface and the second surface are spaced apart from each other” , Huang discloses the saw tooth marks are aligned in a vertical direction between the top and bottom surfaces. See Claim 19 and Figure 7 and corresponding text.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
June 3, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights