CTNF 18/625,543 CTNF 86656 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. DETAILED ACTION Currently, claims 1-8 are pending and examined below. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/03/2024 ("04-03-24 IDS") is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 04-03-24 IDS is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING SIDE MONITOR ELECTRODE IN DICING LINE REGION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 1 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2008/0135841 A1 to Miki ("Miki") . Figs. 4A-4E of Miki have been provided to support the rejection below: PNG media_image1.png 598 398 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding independent claim 1 , Miki teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (see Figs. 3A-4E for example. See also Fig. 2A), comprising: a preparation step of preparing a semiconductor structure in which a termination region 10a (para [0062] - “a semiconductor chip area 10a”) of a semiconductor chip (para [0058] - “Each of the semiconductor chip area 2 has a plurality of semiconductor elements (not shown) formed therein and a plurality of electrode portions 4 formed in a peripheral portion thereof and electrically connected to the respective semiconductor elements. In the semiconductor chip area 2, active elements are also present under the electrode portion 4.”) and a dicing line region 10b (para [0062] - “scribe area 10b”) adjacent to the termination region 10a in plan view are defined; and a dicing step (see Fig. 4E) in which dicing is performed on the dicing line region 10b (para [0071] - “After the inspections are finished, the wafer is diced at the scribe area 10b using a dicing blade D to divide the wafer into semiconductor chips corresponding to the semiconductor chip areas 10a as shown in FIG. 4E.”), wherein the semiconductor structure includes a semiconductor substrate 10 (para [0065] - “As shown in FIG. 3A, the Al layer 11 is formed, in a predetermined pattern, on the semiconductor chip area 10a and scribe area 10b of the semiconductor wafer 10.”) in which the termination region 10a and the dicing line region 10b are defined, a side monitor electrode 16b (para [0067] - “The electrodes pads 16a and 16b are thus formed in the semiconductor chip area 10a and in the scribe area 10b. “) provided on the semiconductor substrate 10 in the dicing line region 10b, a passivation film 12 (para [0066] - “insulating film 12 is formed which is made of silicon nitride…”) provided from an upper portion of the semiconductor substrate 10 in the termination region 10b to an upper portion of the side monitor electrode 16b; and a coating film 14 (para [0068] - “insulating film 14”) provided on the passivation film 12 in the termination region 10b, a thickness of the side monitor electrode 16b is smaller than a thickness of the coating film 14 (see Fig. 4A), and a length of the side monitor electrode 16b in an extending direction of the dicing line region 10b in plan view. Miki teaches a general condition of the thickness of the side monitor electrode 16b that is smaller than a thickness of the coating film 14 and a length of the side monitor electrode 16b in an extending direction of the dicing line region 10b in plan view, but does not disclose a specific condition of “15>b>1.15xd+6.88 is established between a distance b [[Symbol font/0x6D]m], being a distance between the coating film and the side monitor electrode, and a length d [mm], being a length of the side monitor electrode in an extending direction of the dicing line region in plan view.” According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, Miki teaches said general condition. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed specific condition of “15>b>1.15xd+6.88 is established between a distance b [[Symbol font/0x6D]m], being a distance between the coating film and the side monitor electrode, and a length d [mm],” produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Miki, claim 1 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 2 , Miki teaches said general condition, but does not disclose a specific condition of “, being a length of the side monitor electrode in an extending direction of the dicing line region in plan view. According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, Miki teaches said general condition. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed specific condition of “the distance b is greater than or equal to 7 [Symbol font/0x6D]m, and the length d is greater than 100 [Symbol font/0x6D]m,” produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Miki, claim 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller , 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 8 , Miki teaches the preparation step that includes a developing step of forming a pattern of the coating film 14 (The insulating film 14 is dispensed which results in a pattern as shown in Fig. 4A.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2008/0135841 A1 to Miki ("Miki") and further in view of Patent No. 9,985,125 B1 to Sano et al. (“Sano”) . Regarding claim 7 , Miki does not specify the material of the semiconductor substrate. However, Sano teaches that silicon carbide may offer advantages over the conventions silicon substrate for power semiconductor devices (col. 1, ln 13-19 - “Conventionally, a power semiconductor device using a silicon (Si) substrate has been dominant, but recently, a power semiconductor device using silicon carbide (SiC) substrate has received attention and has been developed.”). Sano explains that “Because of a dielectric breakdown electric field one order magnitude higher than that of silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC) has a feature of being capable of maintaining a breakdown voltage even if a depletion layer is made thin at a pn junction or a Schottky junction. Therefore, when silicon carbide is used, the thickness of the device can be decreased, and further, a doping concentration can be increased. Accordingly, silicon carbide is expected to be used as a material for forming a power semiconductor device having a low ON resistance, high breakdown voltage, and low power loss.” (col. 1, ln 20-30). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Miki by employing silicon carbide as the semiconductor substrate for power semiconductor devices with the benefit of having low ON resistance, high breakdown voltage and low power loss as taught by Sano (Sano, col. 1, ln 20-30) . Allowable Subject Matter 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 3. Claim 4 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 4. Claim 5 is allowable for depending from the allowable claim 3. Claim 6 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 6 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Pub. No. US 2024/0154031 A1 to Miyazato et al. Pub. No. US 2021/0384088 A1 to Nakamura et al. Pub. No. US 2021/0020776 A1 to Hsieh Pub. No. US 2017/0345768 A1 to Kim et al. Pub. No. US 2015/0214164 A1 to Matocha et al. Pub. No. US 2012/0302051 A1 to Matsuno et al. Pub. No. US 2010/0181681 A1 to Akiba et al. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M. 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. 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. /MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 11 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/625,543 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 1 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
Prosecution Insights