DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 03/06/2026.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 03/06/2026 in reply to the non-final rejection mailed on 12/08/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Claim 2, is cancelled. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 34, 35, 41, & 43.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 13, & 24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the limitation “a patterned opaque material comprises…” of Claim 8, Applicant’s specification reads on the material of occlusive strips 108 as patterned opaque material. It is unclear whether claim 8 intends to further limit the material of the plurality of conductive occlusive elements of claim 1 or establish an additional patterned opaque material elsewhere. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the applicant’s invention.
Regarding the limitation “a patterned opaque material is opaque to…” of Claim 10, Applicant’s specification reads on the material of occlusive strips 108 as patterned opaque material. It is unclear whether claim 10 intends to further limit the material of the plurality of conductive occlusive elements of claim 1 or establish an additional patterned opaque material elsewhere. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the applicant’s invention.
Regarding the limitation “a first opaque pattern comprises a first plurality of occlusive strips and a second opaque pattern comprises a second plurality of occlusive strips…” of Claim 12, the claim language does not support how in the invention of Claims 1, 4, 6, & 12 the first and second opaque patterns are supposed to be incorporated into the bonded structure. It is unclear whether the first and second plurality of occlusive strips are the original conductive occlusive elements as established in Claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the applicant’s invention.
Regarding the limitation “an occlusive element further comprises at least three optically occlusive layers” of Claim 13, Applicant’s specification reads on an obstructive element 300 and an occlusive element for layers 301-304, which also pertain to the obstructive element. It is unclear whether the occlusive element is the original obstructive element as claimed in claim 1 and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the applicant’s invention. Claim 14 is rejected as depending on claim 13.
Regarding the limitation “the bonding layer of the obstructive element and an optically occlusive layer spaced…” of Claim 24, Applicant’s specification reads on an obstructive element 300 including the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers 301-304. It is unclear whether the optically occlusive layer is a layer of the plurality of optically obstructive layers or a new layer. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the applicant’s invention. Claim 25 is rejected as depending on claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
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, 3, 4, 6, 18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20200303361).
Regarding Claim 1, Shih (see, e.g., figs. 3a-b, para.0051) shows a bonded structure comprising:
a semiconductor element 210 comprising active circuitry (see, e.g., para.0036);
and an obstructive element 250 & 250’ (both layers of 250’, see, e.g., following annotated following figure) directly bonded to the semiconductor element without an adhesive along a bonding interface (between layers 240 & 260, see, e.g., following annotated figure),
the obstructive element 250 & 250’ comprising a plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers (layers 256 of each 250 & 250’) disposed over the active circuitry (above semiconductor element 210) and inhibiting optical reading of the active circuitry,
wherein each patterned optically obstructive layer of the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers comprises
a plurality of conductive occlusive elements 256v at least partially embedded in a non-conductive material (material of 256d),
wherein the plurality of conductive occlusive elements 256v are separated from one another along a direction (horizontal) parallel to the bonding interface,
wherein a conductive occlusive element 256v of the plurality of conductive occlusive elements in one patterned optically obstructive layer is at least non-overlapping with a conductive occlusive element in an adjacent patterned optically obstructive layer 256v’ (denoted as 256v’ to pertain to 250’, see, e.g., following annotated figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
885
1766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Shih (see, e.g., fig. 3b) shows the bonded structure of claim 1:
wherein each of the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers are disposed over and spaced apart from one another along a direction transverse to the bonding interface (stacked vertically above the bonding interface)
Regarding Claim 4, Shih shows the bonded structure of claim 1:
wherein each of the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers comprises
a nonconductive layer 256d (see, e.g., para.0043)
and a plurality of occlusive strips 256l (see, e.g., para.0043) at least partially embedded in the nonconductive layer.
Regarding Claim 6, Shih shows the bonded structure of claim 4:
wherein the plurality of occlusive strips 256l comprises one or more conductive materials (copper, aluminum, or tungsten, see, e.g., para.0037, para.0043).
Regarding Claim 18, Shih shows the bonded structure of claim 6,
wherein the semiconductor element comprises at least one region of sensitive circuitry 212 (see, e.g., following annotated figure, para.0036) and at least one region devoid of sensitive circuitry (portion of 216d, see, e.g., following annotated figure),
a patterned opaque material 256l (copper & aluminum are opaque, see, e.g., para.0037, para.0043) occluding at least a portion of the at least one region of sensitive circuitry and leaving the at least one region devoid of sensitive circuitry unoccluded.
PNG
media_image2.png
843
1213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20200303361), in view of Suwito (US 20220319901).
Regarding Claim 20, Shih (see, e.g., para.0037, para.0043) shows the bonded structure of claim 1:
Shih (see, e.g., para.0037, para.0043) states the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers comprise copper, aluminum, & titanium nitride.
Shih, however, fails to show,
wherein the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers comprises
a material that refracts, scatters, diffuses, diffracts, or phase shifts light to inhibit optical reading of the active circuitry.
Although Shih does not explicitly state copper, aluminum & titanium nitride meets said limitations, Suwito (see, e.g., para.0027) teaches copper, aluminum & titanium nitride, of the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers of Shih, can be a material that diffuses light from reaching the active circuitry of the instant invention.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the material of the plurality of patterned optically obstructive layers of Shih as a material that refracts, scatters, diffuses, diffracts, or phase shifts light to inhibit optical reading of the active circuitry.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20200303361), in view of Enquist (US 20170179029).
Regarding Claim 22, Shih, shows the bonded structure of claim 6,
a bonding layer 258 (see, e.g., para.0044) of the obstructive element
Shih, however, fails to show
wherein the bonding layer of the obstructive element is metallized to match a metallization pattern of the semiconductor element.
Enquist (see, e.g., figs. 8a-b, para.0021, para.0140), in a similar device to Shih, teaches that metallizing both the bonding layer 103a of a semiconductor element and the contact structure of another semiconductor element would provide further communication between electrical interconnections with low parasitic impedance.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the metallization of the bonding layer to match the metallization pattern as taught in Enquist in the device of Shih to provide further communication between electrical interconnections with low parasitic impedance.
Claims 34, 35, & 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shih (US 20200303361).
Regarding Claim 34, Shih (see, e.g., figs. 3a-b, para.0051) shows a bonded structure comprising
a semiconductor element 210 comprising active circuitry (see, e.g., para.0036);
and an obstructive element 250 & 250’ directly bonded to the semiconductor element without an adhesive along a bonding interface (see, e.g., fig. 3b, para.0055),
the obstructive element comprising a first obstructive layer 256 (see, e.g., para.0043)
and a second obstructive layer 256’ (denoted as 256’ as pertaining to portion 250’ of the obstructive element, see, e.g., para.0054) disposed over the first obstructive layer,
the first obstructive layer 256 having a first obstructive pattern 256v comprising a first conductive occlusive material (see, e.g., para.0037, para.0043)
at least partially embedded in a first nonconductive material 256d (see, e.g., para.0043)
and the second obstructive layer 256’ having a second obstructive pattern 256l’ (denoted as 256’ as pertaining to portion 250’) comprising a second conductive occlusive material (see, e.g., para.0037, para.0044)
at least partially embedded in second nonconductive material 256d’ (see, e.g., para.0043),
wherein the second conductive occlusive material (of 256l’) is at least partially non-overlapping with the first conductive occlusive material of the first obstructive pattern 256v (see, e.g., following annotated figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
742
1471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
688
1014
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 35, Shih (see, e.g., fig. 3b) shows the bonded structure of claim 34,
wherein, in a top view of the obstructive element, the first and second obstructive patterns cooperate to inhibit optical reading of the active circuitry.
Regarding Claim 41, Shih (see, e.g., fig. 2h, para.0048) shows the bonded structure of claim 35,
wherein the semiconductor element 210 further comprises a bonding layer 240 (see, e.g., para.0048),
and wherein the obstructive element 250 & 250’ further comprises a bonding layer 260 (see, e.g., para.0048) directly bonded to the bonding layer of the semiconductor element
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 2020303361) in view of DeLaCruz (US 20200328164).
Regarding Claim 43, Shih (see, e.g., para.0042) shows the bonded structure of claim 35.
Shih (see e.g., para.0042) states the obstructive element 250 comprising the first obstructive layer can be configured to be an application specific integrated circuit.
Shih, however, fails to show,
wherein the first obstructive layer is configured to be a detection circuit configured to detect external access of the first obstructive layer.
DeLaCruz (see, e.g., para.0039) in a similar device to Shih teaches a configuration, wherein the obstructive element and its respective first obstructive layer can be configured to be a detection circuit to detect external access of the first obstructive layer, that would improve the device by signaling if the device’s bonds have been compromised.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the configuration of DeLaCruz in the device of Shih to improve the device by signaling if the device’s bonds have been compromised.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to claims 34, 35, 41, & 43 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven 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.
/F.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights