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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated July 7, 2026, in which claims 1, 5, 9, and 17 were amended, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0228587) [Hereafter “Cheng”].
Regarding claims 9-11, Cheng [Figs.6-8] discloses a semiconductor die, comprising:
a layout of contact pads [38A/38B] disposed on a surface of the semiconductor die [10], the contact pads providing areas for mechanically bonding a substrate [200] to the semiconductor die, the layout of contact pads including:
a plurality of active contact pads [38A/60] providing electrical connections to an electronic device [24] [Para.17] formed in the semiconductor die; and
a mechanical support contact pad [38B/62] disposed between the plurality of active contact pads [38A/60] and an edge of the semiconductor die [10] [Figs.6A-B], the mechanical support contact pad providing an area for mechanical bonding of the substrate [200] to the semiconductor die [Figs.7-8];
wherein the mechanical support contact pad [38B/62] mechanically bonds a corner portion of the semiconductor die to the substrate [Figs.6A-B];
wherein the plurality of active contact pads [38A/60] are disposed bisymmetrically about a sagittal axis of the semiconductor die [Figs.6A-B].
Regarding claims 14-16, Cheng [Figs.6-8] discloses a semiconductor die,
wherein the mechanical support contact pad [38B/62] is electrically isolated from the electronic device [24] formed in the semiconductor die [Fig.6A] [38B is not connected to 24; only 38A electrically connected to device 24];
wherein the mechanical support contact pad [38B/62] is electrically connected to the electronic device [24] formed in the semiconductor die via a device contact pad [28’] [Figs.8A-C] disposed on the semiconductor die;
wherein the layout of contact pads [38A/38B] disposed on a surface of the semiconductor die is configured to be soldered to a direct bonded copper (DBC) substrate.
[Note: the limitation “is configured to be soldered to a direct bonded copper (DBC) substrate” is intended use. Intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The layout of contact pads [38A/38B] of Cheng is capable of being soldered to a direct bonded copper (DBC) substrate.].
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0228587) in view of Miura et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0077599) [Hereafter “Miura”].
Regarding claims 1, Cheng [Figs.6-8] discloses semiconductor die comprising:
an electronic device [24] formed in the semiconductor die [10];
a plurality of device contact pads [38A/60] disposed on a surface of the semiconductor die, the plurality of device contact pads [38A/60] being electrically connected to the electronic device [24]; and
a dummy device contact pad [38B/62] disposed on the surface between the plurality of device contact pads [38A/60] and an edge of the semiconductor die [10] [Figs.6A-B], the dummy device contact pad providing an area for a solder joint between the semiconductor die [10] and a substrate [200] [Figs7-8].
Cheng fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of device contact pads including at least an emitter contact pad and a signal sense contact pad. However, incorporating a different electronic device type in the semiconductor die would be obvious. Miura [Fig.2] discloses wherein the plurality of device contact pads including at least an emitter contact pad [14a] and a signal sense contact pad [17a] [Para.44]. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the plurality of device contact pads including at least an emitter contact pad and a signal sense contact pad, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2-6, Cheng [Figs.6-8] discloses semiconductor die
wherein the dummy device contact pad [38B/62] is disposed on the surface at a position closer to a corner of the semiconductor die [10] than to a sagittal axis of the semiconductor die [Figs.6A-B];
wherein the plurality of device contact pads [38A/60] are disposed bisymmetrically about a sagittal axis on the surface of the semiconductor die [Figs.6A-B];
wherein the signal sense contact pad [38A/60] is included in a plurality of signal sense contact pads disposed in a row on the surface along an edge of the semiconductor die [Fig.6B];
wherein the dummy device contact pad [38B/62] disposed on a longitudinal end of the row of the plurality of signal sense contact pads [38A/60] disposed on the surface along the edge of the semiconductor die [Fig.6B];
wherein the dummy device contact pad [38B] is electrically isolated from the electronic device [24] formed in the semiconductor die [Fig.6A].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
[Claim 7] wherein the dummy device contact pad is electrically connected to the electronic device via one of the plurality of device contact pads.
[Claim 8] wherein the dummy device contact pad extends to an emitter contact pad disposed on the semiconductor die.
[Claim 12] wherein the plurality of active contact pads includes at least one emitter contact solder pad and at least one active signal sense contact pad, and wherein the at least one active signal sense contact pad is electrically connected to a corresponding one of a plurality of signal sense contact pads disposed in a row on the substrate.
Claims 17-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
[Claim 17]
a device contact pad disposed on a surface of the semiconductor die, the device contact pad being mechanically bonded to an active solder pad disposed on a substrate; and
a dummy device contact pad disposed on the semiconductor die, the dummy device contact pad being mechanically bonded to a mechanical support solder pad disposed on the substrate, the dummy device contact pad extending to an emitter contact pad disposed on the semiconductor die.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As presented above, Cheng [Figs.6A-B] clearly discloses the mechanical support contact pad [38B/62] disposed between the plurality of active contact pads [38A/60] and an edge of the semiconductor die [10] (the dummy device contact pad [38B/62] disposed on the surface between the plurality of device contact pads [38A/60] and an edge of the semiconductor die [10] ) [See line 6A-6A in Fig.6B from which Fig.6A represents].
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejected claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
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 BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
