DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, Figure 2B, in the reply filed on 3/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Independent claims 1, 8, and 19, plus their dependent claims 2-7, 9-18, and 20, 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In claim 1, the terms “second bridge” and “third bridge” has a clearly defined definition of electrically connecting two dice by lying inside the footprint of the two dice to be connected. In order to electrically connect them it inherently has to lie within the footprint because it has to electrically contact each one. But in claim 5, these bridges are redefined to be outside the footprint of the first and second die. How can they be bridges if they are outside the footprint of the two dies? The disconnect between the accepted meaning of a bridge die being inside the footprint of two die, and the claimed redefinition of a bridge die being outside the footprint of two die is confusing, vague, and indefinite. If they are outside the footprint of the first and second die they are not bridges, therefore the use of the terms “second bridge” and “third bridge” to mean outside the footprint of the first and second die is improper. It appears that these terms are meant to refer to the elements 260 in elected figure 2B. Correction or clarification is requested. For example, use different language to refer to the second bridge and third bridge.
In claim 8, the term “second bridges” in claim 8 has a clearly defined definition of electrically connecting two dice. But in claim 9 “second bridges” is redefined to mean “dummy bridges,” The term “second bridges” is therefore confusing because it can’t be a bridge and a dummy bridge. A dummy bridge inherently isn’t a bridge. The disconnect between the second bridges being a bridge and then not being a bridge, namely a dummy bridge, is confusing, vague, and indefinite. It appears that this term is meant to refer to the elements 260 in elected figure 2B. Correction or clarification of the claim language is requested. For example, use different language to refer to the second bridge.
In claim 19, the term “second bridges” has a clearly defined definition of electrically connecting two dice by lying inside the footprint of the two dice to be connected. In order to electrically connect them it inherently has to lie within the footprint because it has to electrically contact each one. But in claim 20 the second bridges are redefined to be outside the footprint of the first and second die. How can they be bridges if they are outside the footprint of the two dies? The disconnect between the accepted meaning of a bridge die being inside the footprint of two die, and the claimed redefinition of a bridge die being outside the footprint of two die is confusing, vague, and indefinite. It appears that this term is meant to refer to the elements 260 in elected figure 2B. If they are outside the footprint of the first and second die they are not bridges, therefore the use of the term bridge to mean outside the footprint of the first and second die is improper. Correction or clarification is requested. For example, use different language to refer to the second bridge.
Given the dependent claims, the title, the abstract, and the background in the Specification, it is clear that the term “first bridge” actually is a bridge, according to its accepted meaning, and the terms “second bridge” and “third bridge” clearly intends to refer to elements that are not classically defined bridges. They are meant to refer to non-bridges, such as dummy bridges, elements that are not bridges, that are located outside the footprint of the two dies to be electrically connected.
Consequently, for examination purposes, that will be how they will be interpreted.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon, KR 10-2024-0065985.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon (figures 1 & 3) teaches a package architecture, comprising:
a package substrate 200;
a first bridge 220 over the package substrate 200, wherein the first bridge 200 includes conductive routing;
a second bridge 420 over the package substrate 200; and
a third bridge (other 420) over the package substrate 200, wherein the second bridge 420 and the third bridge (other 420) are positioned symmetrically (figure 3) about the first bridge 220.
As detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the second and third bridges are being treated as dummy, or non-bridge, components. Therefore the passive components 420 of Kwon qualify since they are non-bridge components.
With respect to claim 2, Kwon teaches the second bridge 420 and the third bridge (other 420) comprise silicon or glass, wherein resistors and capacitors can be made of silicon or glass.
As to claim 4, Kwon (figure 1) teaches a first die 110a over the package substrate 200; and a second die 110b over the package substrate 200, wherein the first die 110a is communicatively coupled to the second die 110b by the conductive routing in the first bridge 220.
In re claim 5, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the second bridge 420 and the third bridge (other 420) are outside footprints of the first die 110a and the second die 110b.
Concerning claim 7, Kwon (figure 1) teaches a dimension of the first bridge 220 is different than similar dimensions of the second bridge 420 and the third bridge (other 420).
Pertaining to claim 8, Kwon (figures 1 & 3) teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a package substrate 200;
a plurality of dies 110a/110b over the package substrate 200;
a plurality of first bridges 220 over the package substrate 200, wherein the plurality of first bridges 200 are at least partially within footprints of the plurality of dies 110a/110b, and wherein the plurality of first bridges 220 communicatively couple the plurality of dies 110a/110b together; and
a plurality of second bridges 420 over the package substrate 200, wherein the plurality of second bridges 420 are entirely outside of footprints of the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
As detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the second and third bridges are being treated as dummy, or non-bridge, components. Therefore the passive components 420 of Kwon qualify since they are non-bridge components.
In claim 9, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the plurality of second bridges 420 are dummy bridges. They are not bridges therefore they are dummy bridges.
Regarding claim 10, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the dummy bridges 420 do not include any conductive routing. Capacitors do not include any conductive routing.
With respect to claim 11, Kwon (figure 1) the plurality of second bridges 420 comprise glass or silicon, wherein resistors and capacitors can be made of silicon or glass.
With respect to claim 12, Kwon (figure 3) teaches the plurality of second bridges 420 are symmetrically oriented with respect to the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
As to claim 13, Kwon (figure 3) teaches the plurality of second bridges 420 are along a first edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b and a second edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
In re claim 14, Kwon (figure 3) teaches the first edge (top or left) is opposite from the second edge (bottom or right).
Concerning claim 15, Kwon (figure 3) teaches the plurality of second bridges 420 are along a first edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b, a second edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b, a third edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b, and a fourth edge of the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
Pertaining to claim 16, Kwon (figure 3) teaches a pair of second bridges are along each of the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge of the plurality of dies. Figure 3 shows three second bridges 420, but that includes a pair of them and the comprising language encompasses this difference.
In claim 18, Kwon (figure 1) teaches first level interconnect (FLI) structures 160 between the plurality of dies 110a/110b and the package substrate 200 are aligned with FLI pads (where 160 attaches to 200) on the package substrate 200.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, KR 10-2024-0065985, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
Regarding claim 3, though Kwon fails to teach the second bridge and the third bridge comprise the same material as the first bridge, first bridges are commonly made of Si, and Kwon’s second and third bridges 420 are capacitors or resistors which are made of Si. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Si as the material for all three bridges in the invention of Kwon because Si is commonly and conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 6, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the first bridge 220 is in a cavity, but though Kwon fails to teach the second bridge, and the third bridge are located in cavities in the package substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to put the second and third bridges in cavities in the invention of Kwon because it is conventionally known and used in the art. Putting them in cavities save space, make the overall product smaller, and make it harder for them to be peeled off. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 17, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the first bridge 220 is in a cavity, and though Kwon fails to teach the plurality of second bridges are positioned in cavities in the package substrate, t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to put the second and third bridges in cavities in the invention of Kwon because it is conventionally known and used in the art. Putting them in cavities save space, make the overall product smaller, and make it harder for them to be peeled off. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon, KR 10-2024-0065985, in view of Meyer-Berg, US 7,498,67419.
In re claim 19, Kwon (figure 11 & 3) teaches an electronic system, comprising:
a board 500;
a package substrate 200 coupled to the board 500;
a first bridge 220 in the package substrate 200, wherein the first bridge 220 comprise conductive routing;
a plurality of second bridges 420 in the package substrate 200, wherein the plurality of second bridges 420 are symmetrically positioned (figure 3) with respect to the first bridge 220; and
a plurality of dies 110a/110b coupled to the package substrate 200, wherein the first bridge 220 communicatively couple together the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
As detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the second and third bridges are being treated as dummy, or non-bridge, components. Therefore the passive components 420 of Kwon qualify since they are non-bridge components.
Kwon fails to teach a plurality of first bridges.
Meyer-Berg (figure 5) teaches a plurality of first bridges 13/1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the a plurality of first bridges of Meyer-Berg in the invention of Kwon because Meyer-Berg teaches the equivalence of using one bridge (figure 4) with using two bridges (figure 5). The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Concerning claim 20, Kwon (figure 1) teaches the plurality of second bridges 420 are outside a footprint of the plurality of dies 110a/110b.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 4/21/26
Prosecution Insights