DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/147,515 filed 28 December 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Amendments to the claims, filed 11 May 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 claims 1-4 and 10-11 in the reply filed on 11 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9 and 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 May 2026.
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 1-4 and 10-11 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 a silicon bridge die package that requires two major structures:
at least two silicon dies incorporating a plurality of integrated circuits and an embedded multi-interconnect bridge coupled to the at least two silicon dies; and
a dicing-die attach film (DDAF) coupled to a wafer.
The claim is not readily clear with regard to how the two structures are combined, integrated, and/or arranged to form the silicon bridge die package.
Applicant’s original disclosure describes a process in which a silicon wafer is processed by dicing and grinding followed by mounting to a die attach film (DDAF) (see Specification at paragraphs [0038-0039] and FIG. 1A).
FIG. 2A of the original disclosure illustrate that after a cold expansion step, silicon dies <202> and <204> are formed attached to the DDAF structure (see also Specification at paragraph [0043]).
This disclosure would suggest that silicon dies <202> and <204> are formed from the processed silicon wafer. Therefore, the claimed at least two silicon dies and the wafer are the same. However, such a limitation can not be imported into the claims to alleviate the indefinite structure. For the sake of compact prosecution, though, the wafer and silicon dies of the claim are construed to be same structure.
Claims 2-4 and 10-11 do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 further recites the wafer is associated with stealth dicing or saw dicing before grinding (SDBG). The term “associated with” is indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required. For the purpose of prosecution, the type of dicing and/or griding processing is considered a product-by-process or intended use limitation.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US Patent No. 10,535,608 B1) (Rubin) in view of Amano et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0057100 A1) (Amano), Nakano et al. (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2018/123804 A1 with citations taken from the provided machine translation) (Nakano), and Lakes (Foam Structures with a Negative Poisson’s Ratio) (Lakes).
Reference is made to FIG. 13 of Rubin, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
448
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3-4:
FIG. 13 of Rubin illustrates a package structure comprising a bridge device <400> connected to an assembly of IC chips <420> and <430> and a package substrate <510>. IC chips <420> and <430> are bound to a chip carrier substrate <500> by a releasable adhesive <505> (see also col. 12, line 34 to col. 13, line 8).
Said IC chips <420> and <430> read on the claimed at least two silicon dies incorporating a plurality of integrated circuits and the claimed wafer as set forth in the analysis set forth in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection, above.
Said bridge device <400> reads on the claimed embedded multi-die interconnect bridge.
Said carrier substrate <500> and releasable adhesive <505> is construed to be a die attach film.
Rubin does not explicitly disclose the claimed dicing-die attach film.
However, Amano discloses a dicing die bond film (Title).
Reference is made to FIG. 8 of Amano, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
283
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 8 illustrates a dicing film <11> comprised of a base <1> and a pressure-sensitive adhesive <2>, a die bond film <3’>, and semiconductor chips <5> (paragraphs [0027-0036]).
Amano discloses that base <1> imparts strength to the dicing die bond film and is composed of a polyolefin (paragraph [0039]).
Amano further discloses that the pressure-sensitive adhesive <2> is an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive from the stand point of clean washing to overcome damage caused by contamination (paragraph [0043]).
Amano further discloses that the die bond film <3’> is composed of an epoxy resin because they are superior in heat resistance (paragraphs [0081-0083]).
Amano further discloses that the dicing die bond film includes conductive particles to prevent peeling electrification (paragraph [0008]).
Said conductive particles meet the claimed ESD preventative additive.
Amano teaches that their dicing die bond film suppresses peeling electrification while having good tackiness and workability (paragraph [0007]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to use the dicing die bond film of Amano as the chip carrier substrate and releasable adhesive in the structure of Rubin. The motivation for doing so would have been that said dicing die bond film suppresses peeling electrification while having good tackiness and workability.
As to the claimed auxetic material:
Nakano discloses a discing film comprising at least a dicing film substrate and an adhesive layer laminated on the dicing film substrate (paragraph [0011]).
Nakano teaches that the composition of either the substrate or the adhesive comprises additives that do not impair the effects of the invention, wherein the additives are inclusive of foaming agents and foaming additives (paragraphs [0050; 0067]).
This disclosure would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that foam-based additives are art-recognized components used in the production dicing films, and that their incorporation into such dicing films (e.g., their location) is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Lakes teaches that foams with negative Poisson’s ratios are more resilient that conventional foams (page 1039, third column, second paragraph) and are used as shock-absorbing materials (page 1040, first column, last paragraph to second column first paragraph).
Lakes further discloses that foams with negative Poisson’s ratios are produced from conventional low-density open cell polymer foams (page 1038, third column, last paragraph to page 1039, first column, first paragraph) (i.e., said foams with negative Poisson’s ratios are porous foams).
Said foams having a negative Poisson’s ratio are construed to meet the claimed auxetic foam as applicant defines “auxetic materials” as those having negative Poisson ratio (see Specification at paragraph [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to incorporate a negative Poisson’s ratio foam into the tape of Rubin or Amano. The motivation for doing so would have been that Nakano establishes that foam-based additives are known components for dicing tapes and Lakes teaches that foams having a negative Poisson’s ratio are more resilient that conventional foams and also provide a shock-absorbing property.
As to the limitation “configured to prevent dicing errors” recited by the claim, the incorporation of the foam material into the film structure is construed to meet the claimed function absent further structural limitations and a persuasive arguments that the foams of the prior art do not perform the intended function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Amano, Nakano, and Lakes with Rubin to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 2:
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of the claim, above, the claimed limitations are construed to be product-by-process or intended use limitations. As the prior art discloses the silicon die/IC chips recited by the claims, as cited above, the prior art meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding instant claims 10-11:
Amano further discloses that the conductive particles have an average particle size of 0.01 μm or more and 10 μm or less (paragraph [0013]) (i.e., inclusive of nanoparticles).
Amano further discloses that the conductive particles are inclusive of an inorganic compound plated with a metal inclusive of gold (paragraph [0071]).
Amano does not explicitly disclose the type of inorganic compound; however, Amano discloses that fillers other than conductive particles can be compounded, wherein said fillers are silica inorganic fillers from the viewpoint of improving handling property, improving thermal conductivity, adjusting melt viscosity, and giving thixotrophy (paragraph [0092]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings before him or her, to use silica to form the plated conductive particles of Amano. The motivation for doing so would have been that Amano positively describes silica inorganic particles usable in the compounding of materials for a dicing film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 08/14/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights