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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment to the claims, filed on June 1st, 2026, is acknowledged. Entry of amendment is accepted and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's response filed on June 1st, 2026 is acknowledged and isanswered as follows.
Applicant's remarks, see pgs. 8-9, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (a), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 26 and 28-30 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 9-11, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C 103(a) have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of the claims 17 and 21-25 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17, 21-25, 26, 28-30, 37, 41-44 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “attaching a plurality of semiconductor device dies to respective ones of the plurality of interposers” in lines 4-5 and further recites “at least one of the plurality of semiconductor device dies attached to the first interposer” and “at least one of the plurality of semiconductor device dies attached to the second interposer” in lines 6-9. It is unclear to the examiner if the first interposer and/or the second interposer are the same or different from the respective ones of the plurality of interposers. It is also unclear that how can one of the plurality of semiconductor devices dies attached to both of “one of the plurality of interposers” and first or second interposers the same time.
Claims 21-25, 37 and 41-44 are being rejected for being depended on claim 17 and having the above issues incorporate into the claim.
Claim 26 recites “a first assembly comprising the first interposer and the first plurality of dies attached to the first interposers” in lines 5-6 and further recites “dicing the first assembly to form the first chiplet comprising the first interposer” in lines 7-8. It is unclear to the examiner how can the first chiplet comprising the first interposer while the first chiplet is the product from dicing the first assembly which is also dicing the first interposer.
Claim 26 recites “a second assembly comprising the second interposer and the second plurality of dies attached to the first interposers” in lines 11-12 and further recites “dicing the second assembly to form the first chiplet comprising the second interposer” in lines 13-14. It is unclear to the examiner how can the second chiplet comprising the second interposer while the second chiplet is the product of dicing the second assembly which is also dicing the second interposer.
Claims 28-30 and 45-47 are being rejected for being depended on claim 26 and having the above issues incorporate into the claim.
Claim 28 recites “each die in the plurality of dies” in line 2. It is unclear to the examiner if “each die in the plurality of dies” referring back to “each die” of “the first plurality of dies” or “the second plurality of dies” in claim 26.
Claim 29 recites “the plurality of dies” in line 2. It is unclear to the examiner if “the plurality of dies” referring back to “the first plurality of dies” or “the second plurality of dies” in claim 26.
Claim 30 recites “the plurality of interposers” in line 2. It is unclear to the examiner if “the plurality of interposers” referring back to “the first interposer” or “the second interposer” in claim 26.
Claim 30 recites “the plurality of dies” in line 2. It is unclear to the examiner if “the plurality of dies” referring back to “the first plurality of dies” or “the second plurality of dies” in claim 26.
Note: for future prosecution and allowance, please address the following issues of withdrawn claims 19-20 which is not part of the 112 rejections above.
Claim 19 recites “SoC” and “HBM” in lines 2 which contains abbreviation and should be amended to “system on chip (SoC) and “high bandwidth memory (HBM)” for avoiding confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “a second portion of the diced interposer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear to the examiner where is the first portion of the diced interposer and if the diced interposer is the same or different from the interposer in claim 17.
Claim 20 recites “a second portion of the diced interposer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear to the examiner where is the first portion of the diced interposer and if the diced interposer is the same or different from the interposer in claim 17.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights