DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election and amendment filed 17 April 2026. By this amendment, claims 1, 5, 10, and 12 have been amended; claims 4, 6, 7, and 17-20 are cancelled; claims 21-23 are new. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 21-23 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 21-23, in the reply filed on 17 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “power die, the patterned layer, and the carrier define a recess” (as in claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2021/0066130A1 to Nunotani et al. (hereinafter “Nunotani”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nunotani (Fig. 8A) discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a power die 10 (¶ 0046) having a front surface (top) and a backside surface (bottom); and
a patterned layer 20 (¶ 0047) disposed on the backside surface, wherein a portion of the backside surface of the power die is exposed by the patterned layer (Fig. 8A - portions of 17 are exposed).
Regarding claim 2, Nunotani discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the patterned layer 20 comprises a sintered material (¶ 0026).
The language, term, or phrase "sintered", is directed towards the process of making the recited patterned layer. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "sintered" only requires a material capable of being formed by sintering, which does not distinguish the invention from Nunotani, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Nunotani (Fig. 8A) discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the power die comprises a source region 16 (¶ 0048) abutting the front surface (top of 10) and a drain region 17 (¶ 0047) abutting the backside surface (bottom of 10), and the patterned layer 250 is electrically connected to the drain region of the power die (Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 5, Nunotani (Fig. 8A) discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein an edge of the patterned layer 20 is non-parallel to an edge of the power die 10 (edge of 20 is curved and non-parallel to the side of 10).
Regarding claim 12, Nunotani (Fig. 2-5) discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a wafer 100 (¶ 0022; Fig. 2A) having a front surface FS (¶ 0022) and a backside surface BS (¶ 0022) opposite to the front surface, wherein the wafer comprises a plurality of unit dies that comprises the power die (¶ 0021); and
a plurality of patterned conductive structures 20 (¶ 0027; Fig. 4B) that comprises the patterned layer 20 disposed on the backside surface BS of the wafer and spaced apart from each other (Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 13, Nunotani (Figs. 5B-5C) discloses the electronic device of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of unit dies 1 (¶ 0034) overlaps one of the plurality of patterned conductive structures 20, respectively (Figs. 5B-5C).
Regarding claim 14, Nunotani (Fig. 5C) discloses the electronic device of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of unit dies 1 has a width greater than that of one of the plurality of patterned conductive structures 20 (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 15, Nunotani (Fig. 5C) discloses the electronic device of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of patterned conductive structures 20 is connected to a drain region 17 of a corresponding one of the plurality of unit dies (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 21, Nunotani (Fig. 5B-5C) discloses the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the wafer 100 defines a scribe line (Fig. 5B - along WDB; ¶¶ 0032-33), and the plurality of patterned conductive structures 20 is free from overlapping the scribe line (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 22, Nunotani (Fig. 5B) discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of patterned conductive structures 20 defines gaps CG (¶ 0032; Fig. 5B) corresponding to the scribe line (Fig. 5B - along WDB).
Regarding claim 23, Nunotani (Fig. 8A) discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the power die comprises a semiconductor layer 17 (¶ 0047) functioning as the drain region (¶ 0047), and the patterned layer 20 directly contacts the semiconductor layer 17 (Fig. 8A).
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.
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.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunotani in view of US 2012/0280308 A1 to Disney (hereinafter “Disney”)
Regarding claim 8, Nunotani (Fig. 8A) discloses the electronic device of claim 3, however fails to expressly disclose: further comprising: a carrier comprising a first portion electrically connected to the drain region through the patterned layer and a second portion adjacent to the first portion and electrically connected to the source region.
In the same field of endeavor, Disney (Fig. 3) discloses an electronic device comprising a power die 301 (¶ 0019) and a carrier 307 (¶ 0019) comprising a first portion (including 309, ¶ 0019) electrically connected to the drain region through a patterned layer 301D (¶ 0019) and a second portion 307 (¶ 0019) adjacent to the first portion 309 and electrically connected to the source region (via source contact 301s; ¶ 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nunotani to include the carrier as taught by Disney for the purpose of providing electrical connection from the power die to external components and heat dissipation (¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 9, Nunotani and Disney disclose the electronic device of claim 8, Disney (Fig. 3) teaches further comprising: a conductive element 311 (¶ 0020) outside the power die and connecting the source region (via source contact 301s) and the second portion 307 (Disney, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Nunotani and Disney disclose the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the power die, the patterned layer, and the carrier define a recess (Disney, Fig. 3 - recess portions between 301 and 307).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunotani and Disney as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2001/0048116 A1 to Standing et al. (hereinafter “Standing”).
Regarding claim 11, Nunotani and Disney disclose the electronic device of claim 8, further comprising: an electrical connector (Disney, Fig. 3 - wire bond, ¶ 0023) electrically connecting the patterned layer 301D and the first portion of the carrier 309. Disney also discloses the use of other electrical connectors and flexibility in the orientation of the die (¶¶ 0020-23).
However, Nunotani and Disney fail to expressly disclose: wherein a portion of the electrical connector is in contact with a lateral surface of the patterned layer. In the same field of endeavor, Standing (Fig. 15) discloses an electrical connector 45/70 (¶ 0043) that comes in contact with a lateral surface of the layer with which it makes electrical contact (¶ 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electrical connector of Standing in the device of Nunotani and Disney for the purpose of utilizing an alternative electrical connector known in the art to be suitable for use in electronic devices.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunotani as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2021/0134708 A1 to Otremba et al. (hereinafter “Otremba”).
Regarding claim 16, Nunotani discloses the electronic device of claim 12, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the wafer comprises silicon carbide. IN the same field of endeavor, Otremba discloses power die using SiC substrates (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the material of Otremba in the device of Nunotani for the purpose of utilizing a material known in the art to be suitable for use in high power semiconductor die.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
27 June 2026
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights