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 request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-9, and 27-28 under 35 USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 as follows. As an inherited case, the examiner is stepping back to previous claim set and considering again how the applicant has amended the claims on April 16, 2025.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Elsherbini et al. (US 2020/0273839) in view of Rahman (US 8,237,274).
With respect to claim 1, Elsherbini teaches, in Figure 1 and Fig 6, with Fig 6 annotated and reproduced below,
a first die (114-6, [0061]) having a first side (not numbered but clearly shown in annotated Figure 6 above) and a second side (not numbered but clearly shown in annotated Figure 6 above) opposite the first side,
the first side including a first contact (124, [0061]) to be electrically coupled with a second die (114-7, [0061]),
the second side including multiple second contacts (122, [0061]), the second contacts spaced apart from one another; and
a substrate (102, [0061]) including a metal layer (146, [0031,0061]) and a dielectric material (127, [0032]) on the metal layer, the first die encapsulated within the dielectric material (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Elsherbini does not disclose that the different ones of the multiple second contacts bonded, independent of an adhesive, to a same die pad, the metal layer including the die pad.
Rahman discloses an integrated circuit package where multiple contacts are placed on the same die pad (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 58-64) and uses heat and thermal compression instead of adhesive (Col. 1, lines 48-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application that heat bonding as taught by Rahman can be used in place of the adhesive Elsherbini, because fusion boding is a well-known alternative to adhesive in semiconductor devices to the artisan. Furthermore, Rahman teaches that having multiple connections on single die pad is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches, in Fig 6, wherein the first die is a bridge die ([0062], see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches the second contacts are bonded to the metal layer by a metal fusion bond (150-2, [0051, 0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches wherein the second contacts and the die pad include a first metal (copper, [0031, 0040]), and the fusion bond includes a region (150-2, [0051]) having an intermetallic phase (“eutectic tin/copper”, [0051]), the region having the intermetallic phase including the first metal and a second metal (tin, [0051]) different than the first metal.
Regarding claim 6, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches wherein the first metal is copper, and the second metal is tin ([0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches wherein the metal fusion bond is a eutectic fusion bond that includes two metals ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches, in Fig 6, wherein the metal fusion bond includes metal that extends continuously across a full distance between the second side of the first die and a distal side (see top left most instance of 146 in Figure 6 such that the distal side is the lowest part of 146) of the metal layer (see Figure).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second contacts are distributed across a first area, and the die pad extends across a second area, the second area greater than the first area (see Fig. 6 of Elsherbini).
Regarding claim 28, Elsherbini in view of Rahman teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second contacts are electrically isolated from circuitry within the first die (see Figs. 1 and 6 of Elsherbini).
Claims 10, 16, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,147,638) in view of Shih (US 10,833,052).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a semiconductor die (102a);
a substrate (104) to support the semiconductor die;
a host die (105) embedded in the substrate (104), the host die having a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
the first side including a first contact (105a) electrically coupled to the semiconductor die (102a),
the second side including a second contact (105b - bottom surface S2) bonded to a metal layer (104b; seen in Fig. 3o) within the substrate (104) such that metal extends continuously across a distance between the second side of the host die and a distal side of the metal layer (see Fig. 3o),
the substrate including a layer of dielectric material (104a - electrically insulative material) between the host die (105) and the semiconductor die (102a), the layer of dielectric material in contact with the first side of the host die; and
a pillar via (103b, 104b, 104c, 105a) extending through the layer of dielectric material to the first contact, a first end of the pillar via in direct contact with the first contact, the pillar via to electrically couple the first contact and the semiconductor die.
Liu fails to disclose that the pillar via has a bottom at the first end and a top that is substantially the same size as the top diameter.
Shih teaches, in Fig 14, a similar device as Liu et al., but the pillar vias (510) have a bottom diameter and a top diameter, the bottom diameter substantially the same size as the top diameter (as seen in Figure 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the diameter of the top and bottom of the pillar in Liu et al. to be substantially the same size as suggested by Shih, because both sets of pillars perform the same function and there are advantages of uniform dimensions that are well known and predictable, achieve improved uniformity and reliability. This substitution involves routine optimization and does not produce unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Liu et al. in view of Shih teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the host die is a bridge die (105).
Regarding claim 23, Liu et al. in view of Shih teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second contact is bonded to a pad of the metal layer, the pad not used to conduct an electrical current.
Regarding claim 24, Liu et al. in view of Shih teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second contact is bonded to a pad of the metal layer, the pad having a first width, and the host die having a second width, the first width greater than the second width (see Fig. 1 of Liu et al.).
Regarding claim 25, Liu et al. in view of Shih teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first contact has a first width, and the second contact has a second width, the second width larger than the first width (see Fig. 1 of Liu et al.).
Regarding claim 26, Liu et al. in view of Shih teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second contact extends continuously across a majority of the second side of the host die (see Fig. 1 of Liu et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,147,638) in view of Shih (US 10,833,052), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Kenny et al. (US 2004/0076408).
Liu et al. in view of Shih, teaches the use of adhesive (105b – adhesive) at an interface between the host die and the substrate in some embodiments and discusses use of copper roughing technique to improve adhesion.
Kenny et al. teaches that a well-known alterative to using adhesives is a direct fusion bonding (para [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to substitute a fusion bonding in place of the adhesive in Liu in view of Shih, as taught by Kenny, because fusion boding is a well-known alternative to adhesive in semiconductor devices to the artisan and suggestion of different adhesion is suggested by Liu et al.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,147,638) in view of Shih (US 10,833,052), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Elsherbini et al. (US 2020/0273839).
Liu et al. (US 9,147,638) in view of Shih (US 10,833,052) does not explicitly teach bonding by a eutectic fusion bond.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application that an alternative method of bonding is by eutectic fusion bond (Elsherbini, para [0051]) and could be used in Liu et al. in view of Shih, because alternative methods of bonding are known and with the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Liu et al. in view of Shih and Elsherbini teaches where Liu et al teaches copper (Col. 3, lines 14-31). Elsherbini teaches where the contact and metal layers include both copper and tin ([0031, 0040, 0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application that using copper and tin in the device, because they are well known materials for use in these types of devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respective claim 10.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the lack of a “second contact” and the requirement for metal to “extend continuously” have been fully considered. However, as explained above, the bottom surface of Liu’s bridge 105 would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to serve as a contact, even if not explicitly labeled as such. The presence of an adhesive layer does not preclude the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a conductive adhesive or direct bonding could be used to achieve the claimed configuration.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention because of the presence of an adhesive in Liu, it is noted that the claims does not required direct contact or preclude the possibility that the structure still meets the claim limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment filed on April 16, 2025 necessitated the new grounds 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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893