DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 29 Dec 2022 for application number 18/091,014. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Elected claims 1-10 and 17-20 are examined below; non-elected claims 11-16 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I. in the reply filed on 15 Jun 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 17-20, drawn to Invention I. in the reply filed on 15 Jun 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II., there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 Jun 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7, line 2 recites a “third die” and a “bridge” that couples the “first die” and a “third die.” The “bridge” of claim 7 is the same “bridge” of claim 1, that connects the “first die” and the “second die.” No support exists for a “bridge” that connects a “first die” to both a “second die” and “third die.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shih et al. [hereinafter as Shih] (US 2017/0365580 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Shih teaches An electronic package, comprising:
a die layer [layer in which logic dies 11 and 12 reside; Fig. 13, para 0025], with a first side [top side of 11/12; Fig. 13] and a second side [bottom side of 11/12; Fig. 13] opposite from the first side [top side of 11/12], wherein the die layer comprises:
a first die [11]; and
a second die [12];
a bridge [bridge memory die 13; Fig. 13, para 0028] on the first side [top side of 11/12] of the die layer [11/12], wherein the bridge [13] communicatively couples [13 couples 11 and 12] the first die [11] to the second die [12]; and
electrically conductive routing on [metal layer 302; Fig. 13, para 0030] the second side [bottom side of 11/12] of the die layer [11/12].
In reference to claim 2, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the bridge [13] comprises conductive routing [through mold via 202; Fig. 13, para 0050] embedded in a dielectric layer [molding compound 20; Fig. 13, para 0032].
In reference to claim 3, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the bridge [13] comprises a bridge die [13] embedded in a dielectric layer [molding compound 20; Fig. 13, para 0032].
In reference to claim 4, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the bridge [13] is directly coupled to the first die [11] and the second die [12] without a solder interconnection [Fig. 13, para 0028 discloses that connecting elements may be micro bumps, metal bumps, or metal pillars].
In reference to claim 6, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein through die vias [TSVs 116 and 126; Fig. 13, para 0045] pass through the first die [11] and the second dies [12].
In reference to claim 8, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the bridge [13] is embedded in a buildup film [molding compound 20; Fig. 13, para 0032].
In reference to claim 9, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the die layer [11/12] is embedded in a buildup film [molding compound 20; Fig. 13, para 0032].
In reference to claim 10, Shih teaches The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the electronic package is part of a computing system for a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile [para 0004 discloses the structures as part of computers].
In reference to claim 17, Shih teaches An electronic system, comprising:
a board [RDL 60; Fig. 13, para 0050];
an electronic package coupled to the board, wherein the electronic package comprises:
a first die [logic die 11; Fig. 13, para 0025];
a second die [logic die 12; Fig. 13, para 0025] adjacent to the first die [11];
an insulating layer [molding compound 20 around 11/12; Fig. 13, para 0032] around the first die [11] and the second die [12];
a bridge [bridge memory die 13; Fig. 13, para 0028] over the insulating layer [20 around 11/121], wherein the bridge [13] communicatively couples [13 couples 11 and 12] the first die [11] to the second die [12]; and
power delivery routing [metal layer 302; Fig. 13, para 0030] coupled to the first die [11] and the second die [12] on a side opposite [302 on opposite side of 11/12 than 13] from the bridge [13].
In reference to claim 18, Shih teaches The electronic system of claim 17, wherein the bridge [13] is a bridge die [13 is a bridge memory die].
In reference to claim 19, Shih teaches The electronic system of claim 17, wherein the bridge [13] comprises conductive routing embedded in a dielectric layer [molding compound 20 around 13; Fig. 13, para 0032].
In reference to claim 20, Shih teaches The electronic system of claim 17, wherein the electronic system is part of a computing system for a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile [para 0004 discloses the structures as part of computers].
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of Chen et al. [hereinafter as Chen] (US 2024/0120315 A1).
In reference to claim 5, Shih teaches the invention of claim 4.
However, Shih does not explicitly teach The electronic package of claim 4, wherein the bridge is hybrid bonded to the first die and the second die.
Chen teaches The electronic package of claim 4, wherein the bridge [semiconductor bridge 250; Fig. 2, para 0036] is hybrid bonded [para 0036 discloses that bridge 250 and dies 50/150 are connected by hybrid bonding] to the first die [die 50; Fig. 2, para 0036] and the second die [die 150; Fig. 2, para 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Shih and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the hybrid bonding as disclosed by Chen into the semiconductor device of Shih in order to obtain a semiconductor device in which dies and bridges are connected by hybrid bonding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a semiconductor device in which dies and bridges are connected by hybrid bonding to provide the predictable result of providing superior thermal management and signal and structural integrity.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure as follows. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR § 1.111(0).
Nair et al. (US-20190267337-A1) discloses dies with through-vias connected by a bridge [Figs. 1B, 2].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW CHUNG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2898
