DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/18/2026.
Currently, claims 1-2, 5, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 23, 26-28, 30-36 and 53 are pending, of which claim 53 is newly added.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/18/2026. Although amended FIG. 4 addresses some of the objections discussed in the previous office action, it does not address all of the objections.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “the first communication pad communicates capacitively with the at least one second communication pad through a bulk semiconductor material of the second die” (claim 5, similar language in claims 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34), “wherein the first bonding layer comprises a field bonding layer material between the first communication pads and a first capacitive communication tuning dielectric material over the first communication pad” (claim 11), and “a second capacitive communication tuning dielectric over the at least one second communication pad” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “the” is repeated in line 3. Also, “, and” is missing between “the second communication pad” (line 4) and “the third communication pad” (lines 5-6). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 23, 26-28, 30-36 and 53 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “first communication pads including a first communication pad” and “second communication pads including a second communication pad”. This language is confusing, as it uses the same term to describe a plurality of pads as well as one specific pad amongst the plurality. Furthermore, in subsequently recited limitations of “the first communication pad” and “the second communication pad” (see e.g. the last two lines of claim 1), it is not clear whether this is the same individual communication pad recited earlier in the claims, or it is a different one of the communication pads amongst the plurality. Similar language is used in the other independent claims 23 and 32. The dependent claims recite these limitations at least via dependency.
Furthermore, claim 17 recites the limitations “third communication pads” and “a third communication pad”. Again, the same limitation is used to describe a plurality of pads as well as one specific pad. However, even though the term is nearly identical with the exception of plurality vs. individual, it appears that they actually refer to completely different things. The “third communication pads” are associated with the third die, while the “third communication pad”. Thus, subsequent references to the third communication pad becomes confusing, as it is not clear to which die the third communication pad belongs. Similar language is recited in claim 23 and 34.
Claim 23 recites “second signal pads including a second signal pad and a third signal pad”. It is not clear how a third signal pad could be considered to be a second signal pad, yet is apparently distinct from the second signal pad. Claim 23 also recites “third signal pads including a fourth signal pad”. Again, it is not clear how the fourth signal pad could be a third signal pad, particularly when the fourth signal pad is claimed to be associated with the third die while the third signal pad is claimed to be associated with the second die.
Finally, each of claims 2, 26, 27 and 35 contain a limitation referencing the direct bonding between two dies. However, each of these claims depends on an independent claim that already recites the direct bonding of contact pads belonging to a respective die. It is not then clear what is intended to be claimed in the dependent claims, as it appears to have already been claimed in the independent claims. Similarly, claim 18 recites “the first communication pad communicates capacitively with the second communication pad the third communication pad communicates capacitively with the fourth communication pad”. These limitations are already recited in claims 1 and 17, respectively, on which claim 18 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 17-18, 23, 26-27 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghosh (US 2020/0266158).
Pertaining to claim 1, Ghosh shows, with reference to FIG. 1 or 2, a multi-die electronic apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a first die (16 or 30) comprising a first contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and first communication pads including a first communication pad (22 or 42), the first die having a first device surface (top) including first devices, and a first back surface (bottom) opposite the first device surface; and
a second die (14 or 28) comprising a second contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and second communication pads including a second communication pad (20 or 40), the second die having a second device surface (top) including second devices, and a second back surface (bottom) opposite the second device surface;
wherein the first die and the second die are vertically stacked with the second back surface facing the first device surface (FIG. 1 or 2), wherein the first contact pad is directly bonded to the second contact pad at a bond interface between the first die and the second die (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface); and
wherein the first communication pad communicates a signal capacitively with the second communication pad (para. [0038]).
Pertaining to claim 2, Ghosh shows the dies may be bonded by e.g. hybrid bonding (para. [0043] which, by definition, requires dielectric layers at the bonding surfaces so that they can be directly bonded without an intervening adhesive.
Pertaining to claim 5, Ghosh shows the first communication pad is proximate the first device surface and the second communication pad is proximate the second device surface, wherein the at least one first communication pad communicates capacitively with the at least one second communication pad through a bulk semiconductor material of the second die (para. [0035], FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 10, in the case that the bonding layers are present, communication is only possible by traversing the bonding layers.
Pertaining to claim 17, Ghosh shows a third die (12/26) comprising a fourth contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and third communication pads including a fourth communication pad (36), the third die having a third device surface (top) including third devices, and a third back surface opposite the third device surface, wherein the second and third dies are vertically stacked with the third back surface facing the second device surface (FIG. 1), wherein the second die comprises a third contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and the second communication pads include a third communication pad (38), wherein the third contact pad of the second die is directly bonded to the fourth contact pad of the third die at a second bond interface between the second die and the third die (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface), and wherein the third communication pad of the second die communicates a signal capacitively with the fourth communication pad of the third die (via capacitive link 32).
Pertaining to claim 18, Ghosh shows the second communication pad (40) and the third communication pad (38) are different pads of the second communication pads, such that the first communication pad (42) communicates capacitively with the second communication pad (via capacitive link 34), and the third communication pad communicates capacitively with the fourth communication pad (via capacitive link 32).
Pertaining to claim 23, Ghosh shows, again with reference to either FIG. 1 or 2, an electronic apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a first die (16 or 30) comprising a first contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and first signal pads including a first signal pad (22 or 42);
a second die (14 or 28) stacked on the first die, the second die comprising a second contact pad and a third contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface; the second die bonds to the first die below it and the third die above it, and thus in the case of hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding, contact pads are located at both bonding surfaces) and second signal pads including a second signal pad (40) and a third signal pad (38), wherein the first contact pad is directly bonded to the second contact pad at a first bond interface between the first die and the second die (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface), and wherein the first signal pad communicates a signal capacitively with the second signal pad (via capacitive link 34); and
a third die (12 or 26) stacked on the second die, the third die comprising a fourth contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and third signal pads including a fourth signal pad (36), wherein the third contact pad is directly bonded to the fourth contact pad at a second bond interface between the second die and the third die (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface), and wherein the third signal pad communicates a signal capacitively with the fourth signal pad (via capacitive link 32).
Pertaining to claims 26 and 27, Ghosh shows the dies may be bonded by direct bonding (para. [0043]).
Pertaining to claim 30, Ghosh shows the first and second dies are configured to capacitively communicate signals between first and second signal pads, wherein a bulk semiconductor layer of the second die physically intervenes between the first and second signal pads (para. [0035], FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 31, Ghosh shows the second and third dies are configured to capacitively communicate signals between second and third signal pads, wherein a bulk semiconductor layer of the third die physically intervenes between the second and third signal pads (para. [0035], FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 32, Ghosh shows, with reference to FIG. 1, a stack of dies, comprising:
a first die (16/30) comprising a first contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and first communication pads including a first communication pad (42); and
a second die (14/28) vertically stacked with the first die, the second die comprising a second contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and second communication pads including a second communication pad (40);
wherein the first contact pad is directly bonded to the second contact pad at a bond interface between the first die and the second die; and
wherein the first communication pad communicates a signal capacitively with the second communication pad (via capacitive link 34) with a semiconductor layer intervening between the first communication pad and the second communication pad (para. [0035], FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 33, Ghosh shows the first and second dies are stacked with a front (top) surface of the first die facing a back (bottom) surface of the second die, and the semiconductor layer comprises a bulk substrate of the second die (para. [0036]).
Pertaining to claim 34, Ghosh shows a third die (12/26) stacked on the second die with a front (top) surface of the second die facing a back (bottom) surface of the third die, the third die comprising a fourth contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and third communication pads including a fourth communication pad (36), wherein the second die comprises a third contact pad (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface) and the second communication pads include a third communication pad (38), wherein the third contact pad of the second die is directly bonded to the fourth contact pad of the third die at a second bond interface between the second die and the third die (bonding may be via hybrid bonding or metal-metal bonding (para. [0043]), both of which require contact pads bonded at the bonding surface), and wherein the third communication pad of the second die communicates capacitively the fourth communication pad of the third die (via capacitive link 32) with a bulk substrate of the third die intervening between the third communication pad and the fourth communication pad (in the case that the third die and second die are arranged in a back-to-face orientation (see para. [0039], lines 9-12 and para. [0037]), and thus the fourth communication pad is located closer to the top surface, such as pad 18 in FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 35, Ghosh shows the second die is directly bonded to the first die (FIG. 1).
Pertaining to claim 52, Ghosh shows the signal is a non-noise signal (para. [0002], [0035], [0038]).
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Haba et al. (US 10,811,388).
Ghosh shows the apparatus of claim 5, but fails to show the claimed arrangement of the field bonding layer materials and the tuning dielectric materials.
However, Haba teaches in col. 6, lines 37-48 and FIG. 5 that, for a similar apparatus having directly bonded dies in capacitive communication with one another, each die has a field bonding layer material 110 between communication pads and a first capacitive communication tuning dielectric material 514 over the communication pads, such that the capacitive communication is through the tuning dielectric materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghosh to include the tuning dielectric material, as taught by Haba, with the motivation that the tuning dielectric protects against charge and voltage leakage, or dielectric breakdown (col. 6, lines 45-48).
Claims 15, 28 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh.
Ghosh shows the dies are directly hybrid bonded to one another (para. [0043]), which, by definition, requires metal-to metal pad bonding. Although Ghosh does not specify a power or ground connection, these are ones of a limited number of connection types. In such instances, the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawings, while amended FIG. 4 addresses some of the objections previously made, others remain. While Applicant argues that amended FIG. 4 “illustrates capacitive communication between first communication pads 304 of first die 302 and second communication pads 314 of second die 312, and between third communication pads 324 of third die 322 and second communication pads 314 of second die 312”, as seen in amended FIG. 4, none of these capacitive communications are through a bulk semiconductor material, as required by claim 5 and others. Thus, the drawings do not show the claimed features. Furthermore, in addressing the objections to the drawings regarding not showing the limitations of claims 11 and 12, Applicant argues that “amended drawing FIG. 4 to overcome the objection as said figure illustrates capacitive communication between pads of different dies, including between communication pads of the second die and the third die”. However, this argument does not address the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
With regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that Ghosh does not show a structure in which contact pads of different dies are directly bonded at a bond interface while distinct communication pads communicate a signal capacitively, citing the capacitive links without the direct bonding of contact pads of different dies. Applicant further argues that the stabilization techniques listed by Ghosh, which include hybrid bonding and metal-to-metal bonding, would still not lead to the structure of claim 1, particularly “a first contact pad of the first die directly bonded to a second contact pad of the second die at a bond interface between the first die and the second die, in combination with a separate first communication pad communicating a signal capacitively with a second communication pad. Ghosh is therefore silent as to the claimed combination of directly bonded contact pads and capacitively communicating communication pads in the same multi-die apparatus.”
In response, Ghosh clearly illustrates the capacitive communication between pads of different dies, which is explicitly labeled “32” and “34” in FIG. 2. In these same structures, Ghosh shows that the dies that are stacked and communicating capacitively are mechanically connected to provide mechanical stability. Hybrid bonding and metal-to-metal bonding, which both require surface metallizations bonded to one another without an intervening adhesive, are listed as suitable mechanical connections. Thus, Ghosh indeed shows the combination of directly bonded contact pads and capacitively communicating communication pads in the same multi-die apparatus.
The arguments for independent claims 23 and 32 are generally the same as claim 1, and thus reference is made to the response to the arguments above.
The dependent claims are argued to be allowable due to the dependence on an independent claim that is allowable, in addition to being patentable on their own merits.
In response, the independent claims are not found to be allowable. There are no specific arguments related to the dependent claims being patentable on their own merits, and thus the argument is not found to be persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, “Applicant respectfully traverses each rejection, each implicit or explicit reliance on Official Notice, and Applicant does not acquiesce in the validity of the rejections”.
In response, this is only an assertion without any supporting arguments. Thus, this is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lai et al. (US 8,072,064, cited in previous office action) shows stacked dies with contact pads and communication pads. See e.g. FIG. 2.
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 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 DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights