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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 14, 16-24, 33 and 35 have been considered but are moot on new rejection and interpretation of prior art.
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) 1-5, 14, 16-24 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLaCruz et al. (DeLaCruz) (US 2020/0371154 A1) as evidenced by or in view of Usami et al. (Usami) (KR 20040097378 A).
In regards to claim 1, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses a bonded structure (Figs. 1B-2C) comprising: a semiconductor element (items 2a or 2b) comprising active circuitry (item 35, paragraph 35); and a security die (item 2a) electrically connected and directly bonded to a surface of the semiconductor element (item 2b) without an adhesive along a bonding interface (item 8, Abstract, paragraph 12), the security die (item 2a) comprising a security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b), wherein the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b) contains an encryption logic (items 24a and/or 24b, paragraph 37) and a memory (items 31, paragraph 30), and wherein the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b) is configured to perform at least one of decrypting signals to be transferred to the active circuitry (item 35) and encrypting signals received from the active circuitry (item 35, paragraphs 17, 23, 25, 36, 37, 49, 51) by conductive pads (items 21a, 21b) across the bonding interface (item 8). Examiner notes that the Applicant needs to claim structurally how the security core is configured in order to achieve such functionality rather than merely stating what is capable to do. Examiner takes the position that these are merely instructions, that cannot be physically seen, that aid in performing this function. DelaCruz (paragraph 37) discloses that the security blocks 24a, 24b can be configured to encrypt or decrypt date.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure one security block to encrypt and the other security block to decrypt if so desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
DeLaCruz does not specifically disclose wherein the security core contains an encryption logic and a memory patterned on the security die.
Examiner notes that wherein the security core contains an encryption logic and a memory patterned on the security die” are product-by-process limitations (patterning process).
"Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (fed Cir. 1985).
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Usami (Technical Field, claim 8) discloses patterning encryption logic and a memory (item 32) a die.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Usami for the purpose of high density structures that integrate data storage with cryptographic engines.
In regards to claims 2, 23 and 24, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses vias (items 21a, 21b) that electrically connect the security die (item 2a) and the semiconductor element (item 2b).
In regards to claim 3, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the semiconductor element (item 2b) and security die (item 2a) are hybrid bonded (paragraph 14) such that nonconductive regions (regions not occupied by items 21a or 21b) of the semiconductor element (item 2b) and the security die (item 2a) are directly bonded and conductive regions (items 21a and 21b) of the semiconductor element (item 2b) and the security die (item 2a) are directly bonded.
In regards to claim 4, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses further comprising an obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) over the security die (item 2a), the obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) configured to inhibit external access to the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b).
In regards to claim 5, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) is part of a protective element (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10), the protective element (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) directly bonded to a surface of the security die (item 2a).
In regards to claims 14 and 33, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the semiconductor element (item 2b) comprises a first bonding layer (not shown but mention in paragraphs 38, 46, 47) and wherein the security die (item 2a) comprises a second bonding layer (not shown but mention in paragraphs 38, 46, 47) directly bonded to the first bonding layer (not shown but mention in paragraphs 38, 46, 47) without an adhesive.
In regards to claim 16, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses a first plurality of contact pads (item 21a or 21b) in the first bonding layer (not shown but mention in paragraphs 38, 46, 47) and a second plurality of contact pads (item 21a or 21b) in the second bonding layer (not shown but mention in paragraphs 38, 46, 47), the first plurality of contact pads (item 21a or 21b) directly bonded to the second plurality of contact pads (item 21a or 21b).
In regards to claim 17, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the memory (items 24a or 24b, paragraph 37) stores an encryption key (paragraphs 10, 22, 23, 25).
In regards to claim 18, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses a bonded structure (Figs. 1B-2C) comprising: a semiconductor element (item 2b) comprising active circuitry (item 35, paragraph 35); a security die (item 2a) electrically connected and directly bonded to a surface of the semiconductor element (item 2b) without an adhesive along a bonding interface (item 8, Abstract, paragraph 12), the security die (item 2a) comprising a security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b), wherein the security core contains encryption logic items 24a and/or 24b, paragraph 37) and a memory (items 31, paragraph 30); and an obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) disposed over a surface of the security die (item 2b), the obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) configured to inhibit external access to the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure one security block to encrypt and the other security block to decrypt if so desired by one of ordinary skill in the art.
DeLaCruz does not specifically disclose wherein the security core contains an encryption logic and a memory patterned on the security die.
Examiner notes that wherein the security core contains an encryption logic and a memory patterned on the security die” are product-by-process limitations (patterning process).
"Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (fed Cir. 1985).
The method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Usami (Technical Field, claim 8) discloses patterning encryption logic and a memory (item 32) on a die.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Usami for the purpose of high density structures that integrate data storage with cryptographic engines.
In regards to claim 19, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b) comprises an encryption logic (items 24a or 24b, paragraphs 10, 22, 23, 25, 37) and a memory (item 31).
In regards to claim 20, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the security core (items 30 plus 31 plus 24a, plus 24b) is configured to encrypt data to be transferred to the active circuitry (item 35) and decrypt signals received from the active circuitry (item 35, paragraphs 17, 23, 25, 35, 36, 37, 49, 51).
In regards to claim 21, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses wherein the obstructive material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) is part of a protective element material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10), the protective element material (not shown, but mentioned in paragraphs 16, 20, 38-41, 46, 49, 51, claim 10) directly bonded to a surface of the security die (item 2a).
In regards to claim 22, DeLaCruz (Figs. 1A-2C and associated text and items) discloses a carrier (item 5), the security die (item 2a) mechanically and electrically connected to the carrier (item 5).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLaCruz et al. (DeLaCruz) (US 2020/0371154 A1) as evidenced by or in view of Usami et al. (Usami) (KR 20040097378 A) as applied to the claims above and further evidence by and/or in view of Yu et al. (Yu) (US 2020/0176387 A1).
In regards to claim 35, DeLaCruz as modified by Usami does not specifically disclose wherein the security die (item 2a) further comprises a through substrate via.
As evidenced by Yu (paragraph 20, Fig. 1 and associated text) that die (item 50) can have through substrate vias (not shown, paragraph 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yu for the purpose of an electrical connection and/or design choice.
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 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 TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights