CTNF 18/624,811 CTNF 84656 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings filed on 04/02/2024 are acceptable. Specification The abstract of the disclosure and the specification filed on 04/02/2024 are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 7-10 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Minaminu (US 2016/0133784) . PNG media_image1.png 580 725 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 552 546 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Minaminu discloses: A semiconductor die (singulated portions of wafer W as shown in figures 3F and beyond), comprising: a first main face and an opposing second main face, the first main face and the second main face being spaced apart from one another in a direction; a plurality of side faces disposed substantially perpendicular to the first main face and the second main face, the plurality of side faces extending between the first main face and the second main face in the direction; and a first chamfered edge, the first chamfered edge connecting at least one side face, of the plurality of side faces, to the first main face (figure 12D). Regarding claim 5, Minaminu further discloses: wherein the first chamfered edge extends around an entire perimeter of the first main face (figure 3i). Regarding claim 7, Minaminu further discloses: wherein an outer perimeter of the semiconductor die is larger than a perimeter of the first main face (figure 12D). Regarding claim 8, Minaminu (US 2016/0133784, figure 3i) discloses: A semiconductor device assembly, comprising: a substrate (230, ¶0070); and a semiconductor die (singulated wafer W, ¶0062) coupled to the substrate (230), the semiconductor die including: a first main face facing the substrate and an opposing second main face facing away from the substrate, the first main face and the second main face being spaced apart from one another in a first direction; a plurality of side faces disposed substantially perpendicular to the first main face and the second main face, the plurality of side faces extending between the first main face and the second main face in the first direction; and a first chamfered edge, the first chamfered edge connecting at least one side face, of the plurality of side faces, to the first main face (figure 12D). Regarding claim 9, Minaminu further discloses: a die attach component (220, ¶0070) coupling the semiconductor die (W) to the substrate (230). Minaminu does not disclose “wherein the first chamfered edge extends, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, beyond an outer perimeter of the die attach component”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 10, Minaminu further discloses: a die attach component (220) coupling disposed between the first main face and the substrate, wherein the first chamfered edge is disposed proximate to an outer edge of the die attach component. Regarding claim 14, Minaminu further discloses: wherein the first chamfered edge extends around an entire perimeter of the first main face (figure 3i, figure 12d). Regarding claim 16, Minaminu further discloses: wherein an outer perimeter of the semiconductor die is larger than a perimeter of the first main face (figure 3i, figure 12d). Regarding claim 17, Minaminu (US 2016/0133784) discloses: A method, comprising: forming a semiconductor wafer (W, ¶0062); grinding a backside of the semiconductor wafer until the semiconductor wafer is a thickness (¶0207); and dicing the semiconductor wafer into a plurality of semiconductor dies (¶0067) using a chamfered dicing blade (figures 5E, 5F,¶0073-0074), resulting in each semiconductor die, of the plurality of semiconductor dies, including a first chamfered edge connecting at least one side face, of a plurality of side faces of the semiconductor die, to a first main face of the semiconductor die (fig 12D, ¶0089). Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose “forming, for each semiconductor die of the plurality of semiconductor dies, one of a second rounded edge or a second chamfered edge connecting the at least one side face to a second main face of the semiconductor die” in combination with the remaining claimed features . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 4, 12, 13 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minaminu . Regarding claim 3, Minaminu does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die includes the first chamfered edge, wherein a leg length of the first chamfered edge is greater than one-twentieth of a thickness of the semiconductor die and less than one-half of the thickness of the semiconductor die, and wherein the thickness of the semiconductor die corresponds to a distance, in the direction, between the first main face and the second main face”. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 4, Minaminu does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die includes the first rounded edge, wherein a radius of curvature of the first rounded edge is greater than one-twentieth of a thickness of the semiconductor die and less than one-half of the thickness of the semiconductor die, and wherein the thickness of the semiconductor die corresponds to a distance, in the direction, between the first main face and the second main face. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 12, Minaminu does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die includes the first chamfered edge, wherein a leg length of the first chamfered edge is greater than one-twentieth of a thickness of the semiconductor die and less than one-half of the thickness of the semiconductor die, and wherein the thickness of the semiconductor die corresponds to a distance, in the first direction, between the first main face and the second main face”. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 13, Minaminu does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die includes the first rounded edge, wherein a radius of curvature of the first rounded edge is greater than one-twentieth of a thickness of the semiconductor die and less than one-half of the thickness of the semiconductor die, and wherein the thickness of the semiconductor die corresponds to a distance, in the first direction, between the first main face and the second main face”. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 19, Minaminu does not disclose “dicing the semiconductor wafer into the plurality of semiconductor dies using the chamfered dicing blade, resulting in each semiconductor die, of the plurality of semiconductor dies, including the first chamfered edge, wherein a leg length of the first chamfered edge is greater than one-twentieth of the thickness and less than one-half of the thickness”. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met. Regarding claim 20, Minaminu does not disclose “dicing the semiconductor wafer into the plurality of semiconductor dies using the filleted dicing blade, resulting in each semiconductor die, of the plurality of semiconductor dies, including the first rounded edge, wherein a radius of curvature of the first rounded edge is greater than one-twentieth of the thickness and less than one-half of the thickness”. However, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed dimensions. Therefore the claimed limitations are considered met . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2, 6, 11 and 15 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. Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not disclose “one of a second rounded edge or a second chamfered edge, the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge connecting the at least one side face to the second main face” in combination with the remaining claimed features. Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not disclose “one of a second rounded edge or a second chamfered edge, the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge connecting the at least one side face to the second main face, wherein the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge extends around an entire perimeter of the second main face” in combination with the remaining claimed features. Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die further includes one of a second rounded edge or a second chamfered edge, the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge connecting the at least one side face to the second main face” in combination with the remaining claimed features. Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the semiconductor die further includes one of a second rounded edge or a second chamfered edge, the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge connecting the at least one side face to the second main face, and wherein the one of the second rounded edge or the second chamfered edge extends around an entire perimeter of the second main face” in combination with remaining claimed features. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A HARRISTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM. 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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 A HARRISTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/624,811 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights