Attorney Docket Number: 68354.232815
Filing Date: 12/13/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 03/12/2022 (PRO 63/319,308)
Inventors: Sato et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 12/03/2025.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the final rejection mailed on 10/23/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Amendment Status
The RCE submission filed on 12/03/2025 as an amendment in reply to the Office action mailed on 10/23/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 3-8, and 17-30.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification as filed on 12/03/2025 have overcome the objections to the drawings put forth in the previous Office action mailed on 10/23/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the drawings put forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-6 of claim 1, “a chiplet contact electrically connected the first back-side chip contact” should read “a chiplet contact electrically connected to the first back-side chip contact”
In line 2 of claim 17, “the clock tree chiplet contact is electrically connected the first back-side chip contact” should read “the clock tree chiplet contact is electrically connected to the first back-side chip contact”
In line 2 of claim 18, “the power distribution network contact is electrically connected the chip back-side third contact” should read “the power distribution network contact is electrically connected to the third back-side chip contact”
In lines 5-6 of claim 29 and lines 5-6 of claim 30, “a clock tree chiplet contact electrically connected the first back-side chip contact” should read “a clock tree chiplet contact electrically connected to the first back-side chip contact”
In lines 7-8 of claim 29 and lines 7-8 of claim 30, “a power distribution network contact electrically connected the third back-side chip contact” should read “a power distribution network contact electrically connected to the third back-side chip contact”
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be added.
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 18, 23-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the chip back-side third contact”. No “chip back-side third contact” has been recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the power management chiplet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the clock tree chiplet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the power distribution network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the clock tree”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the power management network chiplet”. No “power management network chiplet” has been sufficiently previously recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 depends from claim 29 and thus inherits the deficiencies identified supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 17, 21-22, 28, and 30 are allowable.
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten (1) in independent form to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and (2) to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 18, 23-26, and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues:
20. Claims 23-27 and 29 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant amends the Claims to overcome these rejections.
The examiner responds:
As cited in paragraphs 5-6 of the previous Office action mailed on 10/23/2025, claims 23-27 and 29 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 23-27 and 29 were instead rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (a post-AIA statute) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Although the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s attempts to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office action, the applicant’s amendments have either failed to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office action or have created new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues pertinent to the pending claim set as filed on 12/03/2025. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 7-15, which are considered to be repeated here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814