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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “bottom surface” is found to be a typographical error and is equivalent to “a bottom surface”. No changes to the claim language have been made by the examiner in the instant Office action. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (US 10096578 B1) in view of Tai (US 20210118806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yeh discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Fig. 4B), the method comprising:
forming a die (43), wherein the die has a shape of an octagon in a top-down view (selecting the embodiment of the die in Fig. 1D, the shape of surface 132 is octagonal as shown in top-down view in Fig. 1B), and wherein the die has a chamfered corner (surface 135) with a linear edge;
applying an encapsulant (14) around the die (at least partially around, as applied in Fig. 4B to die 43);
and [including] a redistribution structure (10, vertically over) over the chamfered corner of the die and over the encapsulant,
wherein in a cross-sectional view, a portion of the encapsulant (See annotated figure) fills a space (See annotated figure) that vertically overlaps the die, wherein the space that vertically overlaps the die extends continuously from a sidewall of the chamfered corner to bottom surface of the redistribution structure along a line perpendicular to a top surface of the die (See dashed reference line in annotated figure).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 4B and Fig. 1D of Yeh.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeh generally discloses the spatial configuration of the redistribution structure with respect to other structures within the device (col. 3, lines 13-22: “disposed”), however is silent on how the step of forming the redistribution structure is achieved. Thus, Yeh fails to teach “forming a redistribution structure over the chamfered corner of the die and over the encapsulant”.
Tai discloses a method in the same field of endeavor including a die (Fig. 4J: 13), an encapsulant (16), and a redistribution structure (10). Tai further teaches the method of including the redistribution structure may be designed two ways: 1) forming the redistribution structure over the die and the encapsulant (the embodiment of Figs. 4C-4G); or 2) applying the die and the encapsulant to the redistribution structure (the embodiment of Figs. 7E-7G).
Since Yeh and Tai both teach methods including redistribution structures, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for assembling the die, encapsulant, and redistribution structure (of Tai) would have predictable results when used in the same situation (of Yeh). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try using a different method of assembling the die, encapsulant, and redistribution structure. Thus, the claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. __, 82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). MPEP 2141.03 (I), MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Regarding claim 7, Yeh in view of Tai discloses the method of claim 1 (Yeh: Fig. 1D), wherein an angle θ between a bottom of the die and a facet of the chamfered corner of the die is in a range of 30º to 90º (the angle formed by surface 135 and the bottommost surface of 13 appears to form a 90º angle).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loo (US 5648890 A).
Regarding claim 2, Yeh in view of Tai discloses the method of claim 1 (Yeh: Fig. 4B), however, fails to teach the method “further comprising inserting a bolt through the redistribution structure and the encapsulant, wherein the bolt is adjacent to the chamfered corner”.
Loo discloses a method where heat dissipation is a design consideration during the manufacturing process (col. 5, lines 28-36: “heat sink”) and further discloses the method further comprising inserting a bolt (530) through the redistribution structure (514) and the lateral enclosure (516), wherein the bolt is adjacent to the die corner (any of innermost corners of any of 12).
The method of Loo is related to the method of Yeh because: 1) Yeh also discloses heat dissipation from the device is a design consideration during the manufacturing process (col. 7, line 56-col. 8, line 3: “heat dissipation”); and 2) the encapsulant of Yeh performs at least the function of laterally enclosing the die and external connectors thereof (as shown in Fig. 4B, where 43 is electrically connected to 10). Therefore, modifying the method of Yeh in view of Tai by including a bolt in the same way as Loo, would arrive at the claimed method, further comprising inserting a bolt through the redistribution structure (of Yeh) and the encapsulant (of Yeh), wherein the bolt is adjacent to the chamfered corner (of Yeh). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of success because in both cases heat dissipation is design consideration of laterally enclosed dies. Loo provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a bolt in that it would enable affixing a thermal module to the device, thereby improving heat dissipation (col. 6, lines 56-67: 520, “heat sink…depending on the amount of heat generated”). Therefore, the claimed bolt configuration within the method would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because it would enable improved heat dissipation. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh and Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pirogovsky (US 20100248451 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh in view of Tai discloses the method of claim 1 (Yeh: Fig. 4B), wherein forming the die comprises chamfering a corner of the die (the chamfered corner is illustrated therefore it is necessarily formed) […].
Yeh generally discloses the resultant shape of the chamfered corner (Fig. 1D has been selected), however is silent on how the step of forming the chamfered corner is achieved. Thus, Yeh in view of Tai fails to teach “using a laser saw to form the chamfered corner”.
Pirogovsky teaches a method chamfering a corner of a die in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 7a), and chamfering a corner of the die using a laser saw (104). Additionally, Pirogovsky teaches the method may be used to produce varied chamfer shapes (“kerfs…straight lines…curves…other shapes” [0038]). Therefore, Pirogovsky teaches a method that is applicable to produce a desired resultant chamfer shape. Pirogovsky provides a teaching that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose the claimed chamfering method because the technique would waste less material (Pirogovsky: [0008]: “reduce the substrate area”).
Both Pirogovsky and Yeh in view of Tai teach methods chamfering a corner of the die, however using different techniques. Both methods are performed normally and have the same result: a die having a desired chamfer shape. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had predictable results when chamfering the corner of the die (of Yeh) using a laser saw to achieve a desired resultant shape because the chosen chamfering method does not affect the resultant shape or function of the chamfered corner. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in another situation. MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
Illustrated below is Fig. 7a of Pirogovsky.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yeh in view of Tai and Pirogovsky discloses the method of claim 3 (Pirogovsky: Fig. 7a), wherein the laser saw performs the chamfering of the corner with a wavelength in a range of 490 nm to 570 nm ([0033]: 532 nm) and a power in a range of 10 W to 20 W ([0033]: 20 W).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh and Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 9837366 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Yeh in view of Tai discloses the method of claim 1 (Yeh: Fig. 4B), however fails to teach “the die comprises a seal ring and wherein the linear edge of the chamfered corner is parallel to a linear edge of the seal ring in the top-down view”.
Liu discloses a method with a die (Fig. 5: 110), and further teaches the method having the die comprises a seal ring (162), and wherein the [shape] of the seal ring in the top-down view [has a shape of an octagon].
Modifying the method of Yeh in view of Tai by having the die comprises a seal ring in the top-down view having a shape of an octagon would provide an octagonal seal ring configured among an octagonal surface, thereby arriving at the claimed seal ring configuration “wherein the linear edge of the chamfered corner is parallel to a linear edge of the seal ring in the top-down view”. Liu provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the seal ring in the method because it would protect the device during manufacture, thereby enhancing manufacturing yield (col. 4, line 64-col. 5, line 23: “can stop undesirable damaging”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Liu does not teach the inclusion of the seal ring having any special requirements or changes to the die to enable the inclusion. Therefore, the claimed seal ring configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because it would protect the device from manufacturing defects, thereby enhancing manufacturing yield. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chun (US 20200211922 A1) in view of Yeh and Liu.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding independent claim 8, Chun discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Fig. 13), the method comprising:
forming a first die (Fig. 1: 50), […], wherein forming the first dies comprises […] a first corner of the first die […], wherein the first die comprises a semiconductor substrate (52; [0017]: “semiconductor substrate”) […];
encapsulating the first die with an encapsulant (Fig. 3: 106);
and forming a redistribution structure (Figs. 4-6: 108) over the encapsulant, wherein forming the redistribution structure comprises forming layers of metallization patterns (Fig. 4: 112/116/120) and dielectric layers (114/118/122) therebetween, wherein a bottom surface of the redistribution structure (See annotated Fig. 13) directly contacts [the first die] in the cross-sectional view (108 directly contacts 50);
and forming a hole (Fig. 11: 148) through the redistribution structure and the encapsulant, the hole being adjacent [the [first corner of the first die] (Fig. 12 shows holes 148 are adjacent all corners of each die 50).
Illustrated below are marked and annotated figures of Fig. 13 and Fig. 12 of Chun.
PNG
media_image4.png
455
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
541
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chun fails to teach the method “wherein forming the first die comprises chamfering a first corner of the first die to form a chamfered first corner of the first die, […];
[…] wherein a bottom surface of the redistribution structure directly contacts the edge of the chamfered first corner in the cross-sectional view; and forming a hole through the redistribution structure and the encapsulant, the hole being adjacent the chamfered first corner of the first die”.
Yeh teaches a method wherein forming the first die (Fig. 1D or Fig. 2C: 13) comprises chamfering a first corner of the first die to form a chamfered first corner of the first die (surface 135/236). Yeh teaches the edge of the chamfered first corner includes the entire first corner of the first die (surface 135/236 has been applied to the entire thickness of die 13) in the cross-sectional view. Modifying the method of Chun by chamfering a first corner of the first die would arrive at the claimed method. Yeh provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the chamfering in that it would reduce damage in the device (col. 4, lns. 51-67: “can help to avoid cracking or other damage”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Yeh teaches the chamfering applied to a die encapsulated in the same way as Chun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed chamfering method because it would reduce damage in the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is Fig. 1D of Yeh.
PNG
media_image6.png
484
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chun in view of Yeh fails to teach the method “wherein the first die comprises a semiconductor substrate and a seal ring in an insulating layer over the semiconductor substrate, wherein the chamfered first corner is disposed in the insulating layer in a cross-sectional view, and wherein an edge of the chamfered first corner is parallel to an edge of the seal ring in a top down view”.
Liu discloses a method wherein the first die (Fig. 1G: 110) comprises a semiconductor substrate (col. 2, lns. 44-57: “a semiconductor substrate”) and a seal ring (162) in an insulating layer (180) over the semiconductor substrate, wherein the [shape] the seal ring in a top down view [has a shape of an octagon].
Modifying the method of Chun in view of Yeh by including a seal ring having a shape of an octagon would 1) provide an octagonal seal ring configured among a chamfered corner; and 2) the chamfered corner being disposed in the insulating layer, because as reasoned above, Yeh teaches the edge of the chamfered first corner includes the entire first corner of the first die (surface 135/236 has been applied to the entire thickness of die 13). Thus, including the seal ring (of Liu) would arriving at the claimed method configuration “wherein the first die comprises a semiconductor substrate and a seal ring in an insulating layer over the semiconductor substrate, wherein the chamfered first corner is disposed in the insulating layer in a cross-sectional view, and wherein an edge of the chamfered first corner is parallel to an edge of the seal ring in a top down view”. Liu provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the seal ring in the method because it would protect the device during manufacture, thereby enhancing manufacturing yield (col. 4, line 64-col. 5, line 23: “can stop undesirable damaging”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Liu does not teach the inclusion of the seal ring having any special requirements or changes to the die to enable the inclusion. Therefore, the claimed seal ring configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because it would protect the device from manufacturing defects, thereby enhancing manufacturing yield. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 10, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises forming a triangular chamfered surface (selecting the embodiment of Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 11, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises forming a rectangular chamfered surface (selecting the embodiment of Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 12, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises forming a trapezoidal chamfered surface (selecting the embodiment of Fig. 1D; using the plain and ordinary meaning of trapezoid consistent with the inclusive definition, i.e., a quadrilateral having at least one pair of parallel sides, thus the rectangular chamfered surface is a trapezoid).
Regarding claim 13, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8 (Liu: Fig. 1G), wherein the seal ring further extends into an interconnect structure (structure 120 includes at least a portion 126 of the seal ring) that is disposed between the insulating layer and the semiconductor substrate, wherein chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises forming a first chamfered surface (135 of Yeh: Fig 1D or 2C; this portion corresponds to 130 of Liu) and a second chamfered surface (135 of Yeh: Fig 1D or 2C; this portion corresponds to 120 of Liu) abutting the first chamfered surface, wherein the first chamfered surface is a surface of the insulating layer, and wherein the second chamfered surface is a surface of the interconnect structure (as cited above with respect to 130 and 120 of Liu).
Regarding claim 14, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8 (Chun, Fig. 13), further comprising attaching a thermal module (200) to the redistribution structure with a bolt (202), the thermal module being on a back side of the first die opposite the redistribution structure (directly on), the bolt extending through the hole (completely through).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun, Yeh, and Liu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pirogovsky.
Regarding claim 9, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu discloses the method of claim 8 (Yeh: Fig. 1D or 2C), wherein Yeh generally discloses the resultant shape of the chamfered corner (either Fig. 1D or 2C has been selected), however is silent on how the step of chamfering the first corner of the first die is achieved. Thus, Chun in view of Yeh and Liu fails to teach “chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises using a laser saw”.
Pirogovsky teaches a method chamfering a first corner of a first die in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 7a), and chamfering the first corner of the first die comprises using a laser saw (104). Additionally, Pirogovsky teaches the method may be used to produce varied chamfer shapes (“kerfs…straight lines…curves…other shapes” [0038]). Therefore, Pirogovsky teaches a method that is applicable to produce a desired resultant chamfer shape. Pirogovsky provides a teaching that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose the claimed chamfering method because the technique would waste less material (Pirogovsky: [0008]: “reduce the substrate area”).
Both Pirogovsky and Chun in view of Yeh and Liu teach methods chamfering a first corner of the first die, however using different techniques. Both methods are performed normally and have the same result: a die having a desired chamfer shape. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had predictable results when chamfering the corner of the die (of Chun/Yeh/Liu) using a laser saw to achieve a desired resultant shape because the chosen chamfering method does not affect the resultant shape or function of the chamfered corner. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in another situation. MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
Claims 1, 21, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chun in view of Yeh.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Chun discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Fig. 13), the method comprising:
forming a die (Fig. 1: 50), […] and wherein the die has a [corner];
applying an encapsulant (Fig. 3: 106) around the die;
and forming a redistribution structure (Figs. 4-6: 108) over the [corner] of the die and over the encapsulant, wherein in a cross-sectional view, a portion of the encapsulant fills a space (See annotated Fig. 13) that vertically overlaps the die (overlaps in a plane that extends along the vertical direction), wherein the space that vertically overlaps the die extends continuously from a sidewall of the [corner] to bottom surface of the redistribution structure (See annotated Fig. 13) along a line (dashed reference line) perpendicular to a top surface of the die.
Chun fails to teach the method “wherein the die has a shape of an octagon in a top-down view, and wherein the die has a chamfered corner with a linear edge; […] and
forming a redistribution structure over the chamfered corner of the die and over the encapsulant, wherein in a cross-sectional view, a portion of the encapsulant fills a space that vertically overlaps the die, wherein the space that vertically overlaps the die extends continuously from a sidewall of the chamfered corner to bottom surface of the redistribution structure along a line perpendicular to a top surface of the die”.
Yeh teaches a method forming a die (Fig. 1D or Fig. 2C: 13) wherein the die has a shape of an octagon in a top-down view (Fig. 1B), and wherein the die has a chamfered corner (surface 135/236) with a linear edge (each of the embodiments of Figs. 1D and 2C have linear edges at edges of surfaces 132/135/236). Yeh teaches the edge of the chamfered first corner includes the entire first corner of the first die (surface 135/236 has been applied to the entire thickness of die 13) in the cross-sectional view. Modifying the method of Chun by chamfering the corners of the die would arrive at the claimed method. Yeh provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the chamfering in that it would reduce damage in the device (col. 4, lns. 51-67: “can help to avoid cracking or other damage”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Yeh teaches the chamfering applied to a die encapsulated in the same way as Chun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed chamfering method because it would reduce damage in the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 21, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 1 (Chun, Fig. 13), wherein the sidewall of the chamfered corner directly contacts the bottom surface of the redistribution structure in the cross-sectional view (50 directly contacts 108).
Regarding independent claim 15, Chun discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Fig. 13), the method comprising:
forming a first die (Fig. 1: 50; See selected die in annotated Fig. 12) with a [first corner], a second die (Fig. 1: 50; See selected die in annotated Fig. 12) with a [first corner], a third die (Fig. 1: 50; See selected die in annotated Fig. 12) with a [first corner], and a fourth die (Fig. 1: 50; See selected die in annotated Fig. 12) with a [first corner];
encapsulating the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die with an encapsulant (Fig. 3: 106), wherein the [first corner] of the first die, the [first corner] of the second die, the [first corner] of the third die, and the [first corner] of the fourth die form a quadrilateral shape region in a top-down view (four corners are selected, thus “a quadrilateral shape region” is formed when drawing region lines connecting these corners), the encapsulant filling the quadrilateral shape region (as shown in Fig. 13, which shows encapsulant 106 between dies 50 along reference line B-B);
forming a redistribution structure (Figs. 4-6: 108) on the encapsulant, the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die (directly on all of these);
and after forming the redistribution structure on the encapsulant, the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die, removing a material from the redistribution structure (Fig. 11: hole 148 has removed a portion of RDL 108) and a material from the encapsulant (Fig. 11: hole 148 has removed a portion of encapsulant 106) to form a hole (148) extending through the redistribution structure and the encapsulant (completely through), the hole being disposed in the quadrilateral shape region (148 is centered in the region as shown in Fig. 12).
Chun fails to teach the method “forming a first die with a chamfered first corner, a second die with a chamfered first corner, a third die with a chamfered first corner, and a fourth die with a chamfered first corner;
encapsulating the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die with an encapsulant, wherein the chamfered first corner of the first die, the chamfered first corner of the second die, the chamfered first corner of the third die, and the chamfered first corner of the fourth die form a quadrilateral shape region in a top-down view”.
Yeh teaches a method wherein forming a die (Figs. 1C, 1D, or 2C: 13) comprises forming a die with a chamfered first corner (surface 136/135/236). Yeh teaches the edge of the chamfered first corner includes the entire first corner of the first die (surface 136/135/236 has been applied to the entire thickness of die 13) in the cross-sectional view. Modifying the method of Chun by chamfering a first corner of each of the first, second, third, and fourth dies would arrive at the claimed method. Yeh provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the chamfering in that it would reduce damage in the device (col. 4, lns. 51-67: “can help to avoid cracking or other damage”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Yeh teaches the chamfering applied to a die encapsulated in the same way as Chun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed chamfering method because it would reduce damage in the device. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 16, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the chamfered first corner of the first die comprises a linear edge (Yeh: each of the embodiments of Figs. 1C, 1D, and 2C have linear edges at edges of surfaces 132/136/135/236) in the top-down view.
Regarding claim 17, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the chamfered first corner of the first die comprises an inverted corner (Yeh: Fig. 1C: the corner of surfaces 135/136) in the top-down view.
Regarding claim 18, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first die further comprises a chamfered second corner, a chamfered third corner, and a chamfered fourth corner (Yeh: Fig. 1B shows chamfering all four corners).
Regarding claim 19, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 15 (Chun: Fig 13), further comprising: inserting a bolt (202 with 206) through the hole (completely through), wherein the bolt overlaps (overlaps in at least some direction) a first space occupied by a first corner of the first die prior to chamfering the first corner of the first die to form the chamfered first corner of the first die.
Regarding claim 20, Chun in view of Yeh discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the bolt further overlaps (overlaps in at least some direction) a second space occupied by a first corner of the second die prior to chamfering the first corner of the second die to form the chamfered first corner of the second die.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1 that “Yeh still fails to disclose a portion of the asserted encapsulant 14 fills a space that vertically overlaps the asserted die 43, wherein the space that vertically overlaps the asserted die 43 extends continuously from the back surface 432 of the asserted die 43 to bottom surface of the asserted redistribution structure 10 along a line perpendicular to a top surface of the asserted die 43”. Remarks at pg. 8.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner agrees with the contended surface configuration of Applicant’s remarks. However, the claim rejection is maintained in the instant office action. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., space, back surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner has relied upon embodiments of Yeh that chamfer the die completely from the back surface to the front surface, therefore meeting the claim.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 8 “wherein the redistribution structure directly contacts the edge of the chamfered first corner in a cross-sectional view.” The cited references, individually or in combination do not teach or suggest the elements of claim 8”. Remarks at pg. 8.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found reference (Chun).
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 15 that “Loo does not make up for Yeh and Tai’s deficiencies with respect to amended claim 15”.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found reference (Chun).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817