Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/716,928

EMBEDDED MULTI-DIE INTERCONNECT BRIDGE WITH IMPROVED POWER DELIVERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2022
Examiner
LIN, JOHN
Art Unit
2815
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Altera Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
253 granted / 422 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
448
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 422 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 22 September 2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner. 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. 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) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (U.S. Pub. 2018/0102311) in view of Hu (U.S. Pub. 2017/0229409). Claim 1: Shih discloses a multi-chip package, in annotated Fig. 14 below and in paragraphs 27, 39, 49, 56 and 60, comprising: an interconnect bridge (101) having a first contact pad and a second contact pad thereon, the interconnect bridge (101) comprising a silicon die; a conductive structure (lower portion of 510) laterally spaced apart from the interconnect bridge (101); a second dielectric layer (202 and 550) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a first via in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the first via coupled to the first contact pad; a second via in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the second via coupled to the second contact pad; a third via (upper portion of 510) in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the third via (upper portion of 510) above and coupled to the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a third dielectric layer (912) on the second dielectric layer (502 and 550), the third dielectric layer (912) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a first die (11) over the third dielectric layer (912), the first die (11) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); and a second die (12) over the interconnect bridge (101), the second die (12) coupled to the first die (11) by the interconnect bridge (101). PNG media_image1.png 532 868 media_image1.png Greyscale Shih appears not to explicitly disclose the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge, a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge, and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure. Hu, however, in Fig. 6 (enlarged portion of Fig. 6 provided below) and in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38, discloses the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge (20), a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge (20), and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure. PNG media_image2.png 512 944 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih with the disclosure of Hu to have made the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge, a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge, and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, and the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure in order to be able to route electrical signals to different parts of the package. Claim 2: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1, and in Fig. 14 and in paragraph 56, Shih discloses further comprising: one or more through silicon vias (110) in the silicon die. Claim 3: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1, and in Fig. 14, Shih further discloses wherein the conductive structure (lower portion of 510) has a vertical length greater than a vertical length of each of the first via and the second via. Claim 4: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1, and in Fig. 14, Shih further discloses wherein the conductive structure (lower portion of 510) has a vertical length greater than a vertical length of each of the first contact pad and the second contact pad. Claim 11: Shih discloses a multi-chip package, in annotated Fig. 14 below and in paragraphs 27, 39, 49, 56 and 60, comprising: an interconnect bridge (101) having a first contact pad and a second contact pad thereon, the interconnect bridge (101) having one or more through vias (110); a conductive structure (lower portion of 510) laterally spaced apart from the interconnect bridge (101); a second dielectric layer (202 and 550) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a first via in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the first via coupled to the first contact pad; a second via in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the second via coupled to the second contact pad; a third via (upper portion of 510) in the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the third via (upper portion of 510) above and coupled to the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a third dielectric layer (912) on the second dielectric layer (202 and 550), the third dielectric layer (912) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); a first die (11) over the third dielectric layer (912), the first die (11) over the interconnect bridge (101) and over the conductive structure (lower portion of 510); and a second die (12) over the interconnect bridge (101), the second die (12) coupled to the first die (11) by the interconnect bridge (101). PNG media_image3.png 510 895 media_image3.png Greyscale Shih appears not to explicitly disclose the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge, a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge, and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, and wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure. Hu, however, in Fig. 6 (enlarged portion of Fig. 6 provided below) and in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38, discloses the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge (20), a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge (20), and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure. PNG media_image2.png 512 944 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih with the disclosure of Hu to have made the conductive structure has an uppermost surface above a bottommost surface of the interconnect bridge, a first dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent the interconnect bridge, and the first dielectric layer laterally adjacent and in contact with the conductive structure, and the second dielectric layer on the first dielectric layer, wherein the third via is separate and distinct from the conductive structure, and wherein the third via has a center laterally offset from a center of the conductive structure in order to be able to route electrical signals to different parts of the package. Claim 12: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11, and in annotated Fig. 14 above, Shih discloses further comprising: a conductive via vertically beneath the interconnect bridge (101). Claim 13: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11, and in Fig. 14, Shih further discloses wherein the conductive structure (lower portion of 510) has a vertical length greater than a vertical length of each of the first via and the second via. Claim 14: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11, and in Fig. 14, Shih further discloses wherein the conductive structure (lower portion of 510) has a vertical length greater than a vertical length of the first contact pad and the second contact pad. Claim(s) 5-10 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of Hu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Braunisch et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0327424). Claim 5: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose a cavity laterally between the interconnect bridge and the first dielectric layer. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraph 49 and 62, discloses a cavity (615) laterally between the interconnect bridge (540) and the first dielectric layer (610) in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made a cavity laterally between the interconnect bridge and the first dielectric layer in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed (paragraph 49 of Braunisch). Claim 6: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the interconnect bridge is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraph 49 and 62, discloses the interconnect bridge (540) is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer (610) in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the interconnect bridge is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed (paragraph 49 of Braunisch). Claims 7 and 8: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first die is a main die, and the second die is a secondary die; and wherein the main die is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die. Braunisch et al., however, in paragraph 74, discloses the first die (1120) is a main die, and the second die (1130) is a secondary die; and wherein the main die (1120) is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die (1130) is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the first die is a main die, and the second die is a secondary die; and wherein the main die is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die in order to for the package to have functionality. Claims 9 and 10: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 1. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a first plurality of conductive bumps having a first pitch, and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps having a second pitch greater than the first pitch; and wherein the second die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a third plurality of conductive bumps having a third pitch, and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps having a fourth pitch greater than the third pitch. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraphs 22, 46, 48 and 51, discloses the first die (520) is coupled to the interconnect bridge (540) by a first plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 520 and 540) having a first pitch (fine pitch), and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 520 and 610) having a second pitch (course pitch) greater than the first pitch; and wherein the second die (530) is coupled to the interconnect bridge (540) by a third plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 530 and 510) having a third pitch (fine pitch), and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 530 and 610) having a fourth pitch (course pitch) greater than the third pitch in order to increase communication bandwidth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the first die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a first plurality of conductive bumps having a first pitch, and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps having a second pitch greater than the first pitch; and the second die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a third plurality of conductive bumps having a third pitch, and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps having a fourth pitch greater than the third pitch in order to increase communication bandwidth (paragraph 22). Claim 15: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11 Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose a cavity laterally between the interconnect bridge and the first dielectric layer. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraph 49 and 62, discloses a cavity (615) laterally between the interconnect bridge (540) and the first dielectric layer (610) in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made a cavity laterally between the interconnect bridge and the first dielectric layer in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed (paragraph 49 of Braunisch). Claim 16: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the interconnect bridge is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraph 49 and 62, discloses the interconnect bridge (540) is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer (610) in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the interconnect bridge is laterally spaced apart from the first dielectric layer in order to prevent underfillings of dies from being disturbed (paragraph 49 of Braunisch). Claims 17 and 18: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first die is a main die, and the second die is a secondary die; and wherein the main die is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die. Braunisch et al., however, in paragraph 74, discloses the first die (1120) is a main die, and the second die (1130) is a secondary die; and wherein the main die (1120) is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die (1130) is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the first die is a main die, and the second die is a secondary die; and wherein the main die is a die selected from the group consisting of a central processing unit (CPU) die, a graphics processing unit (GPU) die, and an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die, and wherein the secondary die is a die selected from the group consisting of a memory die and a transceiver die in order to for the package to have functionality. Claims 19 and 20: Shih in view of Hu discloses the multi-chip package of claim 11. Shih in view of Hu appears not to explicitly disclose wherein the first die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a first plurality of conductive bumps having a first pitch, and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps having a second pitch greater than the first pitch; and wherein the second die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a third plurality of conductive bumps having a third pitch, and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps having a fourth pitch greater than the third pitch. Braunisch et al., however, in Fig. 6 and in paragraphs 22, 46, 48 and 51, discloses the first die (520) is coupled to the interconnect bridge (540) by a first plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 520 and 540) having a first pitch (fine pitch), and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 520 and 610) having a second pitch (course pitch) greater than the first pitch; and wherein the second die (530) is coupled to the interconnect bridge (540) by a third plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 530 and 510) having a third pitch (fine pitch), and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps (bumps between 530 and 610) having a fourth pitch (course pitch) greater than the third pitch in order to increase communication bandwidth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Shih in view of Hu with the disclosure of Braunisch et al. to have made the first die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a first plurality of conductive bumps having a first pitch, and wherein the first die further comprises a second plurality of conductive bumps having a second pitch greater than the first pitch; and the second die is coupled to the interconnect bridge by a third plurality of conductive bumps having a third pitch, and wherein the second die further comprises a fourth plurality of conductive bumps having a fourth pitch greater than the third pitch in order to increase communication bandwidth (paragraph 22). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST. 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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. /JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 25, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 27, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 05, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604722
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593437
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575422
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE WITH ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557296
TRANSISTOR AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12543303
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+8.0%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 422 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month