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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
In response to Office action mailed 05/04/2026, Applicants amended claims 1-4, 9 and 11 and cancelled claim 6 in the response filed 07/29/2026.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-11 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (PG Pub 2018/0182671; hereinafter Huang) and Ding et al. (PG Pub 2009/0127652; hereinafter Ding).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b provided above, Huang teaches a substrate comprising
a core as a glass or ceramic support (para [0022]), wherein the substrate is divided into a product region (annotated “active” Fig. 2b) and a dummy region (annotated “dummy” in Fig. 2b), the product region is a region where one or more individual products (dies not shown; para [0022]) are disposed, the dummy region is a region of the substrate other than the product region (see Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b above),
wherein a breakage prevention portion 103,107,109 is disposed in the product region or the dummy region (see figures above), the breakage prevention portion is a region in which one or more crack stopping structures (grooves and vias) are disposed (para [0023]), and the crack stopping structure are grooves 103,107 or vias 109 that stop cracks generated from the side of the core from growing toward the center of the individual product;
wherein the groove is a depression in a surface of the core (see Fig. 2a), and the via is a through hole that has been removed so that a portion of the core being penetrate in a thickness direction (see Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b above).
The recited “one or more crack stopping structures are disposed, and the crack stopping structure are grooves or vias that stop cracks generated from the side of the core from growing toward the center of the individual product” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having a groove (depression in a surface of the core) and a via (through hole that has been removed so that a portion of the core being penetrate in a thickness direction) within a breakage prevention portion disposed in the product region or the dummy region, which Huang clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Although, Huang teaches the groove is a filled groove, the via is a filled via, the filled groove or the filled via is filled with a dielectric layer, and an opening of the filled groove or the filled via comes into contact with a via pad (annotated “pad” in Fig. 2b). Huang does not explicitly teach the filled via is filled with a metal layer.”
PNG
media_image2.png
443
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 10-provided above, Ding teaches a semiconductor structure 10 comprising: a via; wherein the via can be filled with a metal layer 30 or a dielectric material 80 (para [0050]); and an opening of the filled via comes into contact with a via pad 90 (see Fig. 10).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dielectric via of Huang comprise a metal material composition, as taught by Ding, for the purpose of choosing a suitable and well known via material composition.
Regarding claim 3, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches the breakage prevention portion 103,107,109 comprises a plurality of grooves 013,107 or vias 109 disposed adjacent to a boundary line (annotated “boundary line” in Fig. 2a above) between the product region (active) and the dummy region (dummy) (see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches the groove 103, 107 or via has an opening (portion filled with metal) having a diameter A , and a pitch of the grooves or vias adjacent to each other is 1.3 to 20 times of diameter A (para [0023]; “if the width of trenches 103 and 107 is 25 µm, then the pitch between the trenches 103 and 107 (center-to-center) would be 50 µm”).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches the crack stopping structure (grooves and vias) comprises a curved structure (see Fig. 2b) in which the grooves or vias 103,107,109 are disposed along a shape of an edge (outer perimeter of “active”) of the individual product (see Fig.2a and Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches the crack stopping structure (grooves and vias) further comprises a side surface protection layer (side portion of 201) which is a structure covering a part or all of side surfaces of the core (middle portion of 101) (see figures above).
Regarding claim 8, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches a stabilization layer (201 on top, bottom and sides of 101), and wherein the stabilization layer covers surfaces comprising an upper surface and a lower surface of the core (see figures above).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches a surface comprising the side surface of the core (left and right side), a portion of the upper surface (top) connected to the side surface, and a portion of the lower surface (bottom) connected to the side surface are a side surface to be protected (by 201), and the side surface protection layer (201-side) is disposed on part or all of the side surface to be protected (see figures above).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches the stabilization layer 201 comprises an insulating layer (para [0026]) and the side surface protection layer (side portion of 201) comprises an insulating layer (see figures above).
2. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Ding, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (PG Pub 2020/0058551; hereinafter Bae).
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Ding, Huang teaches individual product (dies), a center point (center of the active area), and an inner border line (border between 201 and 101) when viewed from above (see Fig. 2), the center point is an imaginary point corresponding to a geometric center of the individual product (see Fig. 2), he does not explicitly teach the “individual product has a cutting line and an inner border when viewed from above, the cutting line is a line forming an outline of the individual product when the individual product is separated, and the inner border line is an imaginary line that approaches the center point as much as 20% of a length from the cutting line.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1 provided above, Bae teaches a semiconductor substrate 100 comprising: an individual product 102 has a cutting line 104 and an inner border (outline of 102) when viewed from above (see Fig. 1), the cutting line is a line forming an outline of the individual product when the individual product is separated (see Fig. 1), and the inner border line is an imaginary line that approaches the center point as much as 20% of a length from the cutting line (see Fig. 1).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cutting line, forming an outline of the individual product as taught by Bae, to separate the individual products.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 11, a side surface protection layer, wherein the stabilization layer comprises an insulating layer and the side surface protection layer comprises an insulating layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons 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 Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on (571) 272-2063. 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.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
