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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, from claim 15 “a second transceiver conductive structure, associated with the second semiconductor die, over the first transceiver conductive structure” and “a second TDV structure in the dielectric fill layer that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and a second conductive pad of the first semiconductor die” (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The claim requires a TDV between a second transceiver and a pad wherein said second transceiver is over another transceiver. This is not shown in the drawings where the only transceiver structures with an associated TDV are bottom transceiver structures and therefore said transceiver structures cannot be over any other transceiver structure as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 7 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8.18.2025.
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.
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, 3-6 and 15-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to encompass more embodiments that originally disclosed and as such fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim (see below) now encompasses embodiments where only one of the transceiver conductive structures is electrically connected to a corresponding die through a TDV given the use of “at least one of” and “or” in the claim language.
The originally disclosed invention does not support only one of the transceiver conductive structures is electrically connected to a corresponding die through a TDV; the originally disclosed invention requires both transceiver conductive structures electrically connected to a corresponding die through a TDV.
The basis from the examiner’s position can be found, e.g., in (a) Fig. 2 which shows both structures 256a and 2588 electrically connected to TDVs 236, (b) the disclosure of “The transceiver conductive structures 256a and 258a may be located above and/or over, and may be electrically connected and/or physically connected with respective TDV structures 236” in the specification as filed ([0056] of the published application, and, (c) original claim 4.
The original disclosed invention does not disclose alternative connections between transceiver structures and corresponding dies besides using TDVs and applicant’s amendment now introduces embodiments where TDVs are not used or are used alternatively which is new matter.
Hence, the claim amendment expands the scope of the claim beyond applicant’s disclosed invention and includes new matter.
None of dependent claims 3-6 address this deficiency and are rejected with base claim 1.
The claim recites (emphasis added):
“wherein at least one of:
the first transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through a first through dielectric via (TDV) structure that extends between the first transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the second semiconductor die, or
the second transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through a second TDV structure that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the third semiconductor die”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been amended to encompass more embodiments that originally disclosed and as such fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim (see below) now encompasses embodiments where only one of the recited transceiver conductive structures is included within the scope of the claim as well as only one TDV given the use of the terms “at least one of” and “or” throughout the claim.
The originally disclosed invention requires both transceiver conductive structures present and both electrically connected to a corresponding die through a TDV.
The basis from the examiner’s position can be found, e.g., in (a) Fig. 2 which shows both structures 256a and 2588 electrically connected to TDVs 236, (b) the disclosure of “The transceiver conductive structures 256a and 258a may be located above and/or over, and may be electrically connected and/or physically connected with respective TDV structures 236” in the specification as filed ([0056] of the published application, and, (c) original claim 4.
The original disclosed invention does not disclose alternative presence of transceiver structures nor alternative connections between transceiver structures and corresponding dies besides using TDVs and applicant’s amendment now introduces embodiments where transceiver structures and TDVs are not used or are used alternatively which is new matter.
Hence, the claim amendment expands the scope of the claim beyond applicant’s disclosed invention and includes new matter.
None of dependent claims 16-20 address this deficiency and are rejected with base claim 15.
The claim recites:
“one or more transceiver conductive structures, comprising at least one of:
a first transceiver conductive structure, associated with the second semiconductor die, under the dielectric waveguide structure and in the first low-k dielectric layer; or
a second transceiver conductive structure, associated with the second semiconductor die, over the first transceiver conductive structure and in the second low-k dielectric layer; and
one or more through dielectric via (TDV) structures, comprising at least one of:
a first TDV structure in the dielectric fill layer that extends between the first transceiver conductive structure and a first conductive pad of the first semiconductor die; or
a second TDV structure in the dielectric fill layer that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and a second conductive pad of the first semiconductor die”.
Regarding claim 15, on a separate matter, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement because it requires (a) “a second transceiver conductive structure, associated with the second semiconductor die, over the first transceiver conductive structure” and (b) “a second TDV structure in the dielectric fill layer that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and a second conductive pad of the first semiconductor die” (emphasis added).
The claim requires a TDV between a second transceiver and a pad wherein said second transceiver is over another transceiver. This is not disclosed nor supported by the original disclosure where the only transceiver structures with an associated TDV are bottom transceiver structures and therefore said transceiver structures cannot be over any other transceiver structure as claimed.
None of dependent claims 16-20 address this deficiency and are rejected with base claim 15.
Claims 4-5 and 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the first transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through the first TDV structure; and wherein the second transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through the second TDV structure” (emphasis added) is indefinite as it is unclear if the use of the term “and” in claim 4 eliminates or not the alternative connection embodiment of base claim 1.
That is, base claim 1 (see below) discloses connections between transceiver structures and corresponding dies using TDVs in an alternative matter per the use of “at least one of” and “or”, wherein it is unclear if the use of “and” in claim 4 now requires that both transceiver structures are connected to corresponding dies using TDVs or if the alternative scope of claim 1 is maintained in claim 4.
Base claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“wherein at least one of:
the first transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through a first through dielectric via (TDV) structure that extends between the first transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the second semiconductor die, or
the second transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through a second TDV structure that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the third semiconductor die”.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the first transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through the first semiconductor die; and wherein the second transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through the first semiconductor die” (emphasis added) is indefinite as it is unclear if the use of the term “and” in claim 5 eliminates or not the alternative connection embodiment of base claim 1 as explained above.
That is, base claim 1 (see below) discloses connections between transceiver structures and corresponding dies using TDVs in an alternative matter per the use of “at least one of” and “or”, wherein it is unclear if the use of “and” in claim 5 now requires that both transceiver structures are connected to corresponding dies using TDVs or if the alternative scope of claim 1 is maintained in claim 5.
Base claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“wherein at least one of:
the first transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through a first through dielectric via (TDV) structure that extends between the first transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the second semiconductor die, or
the second transceiver conductive structure is electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through a second TDV structure that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and the first semiconductor die along a side of the third semiconductor die”.
Regarding claim 15, “a second transceiver conductive structure, associated with the second semiconductor die, over the first transceiver conductive structure” and “a second TDV structure in the dielectric fill layer that extends between the second transceiver conductive structure and a second conductive pad of the first semiconductor die” render the claim indefinite.
It is unclear how a transceiver structure which is over other transceiver structures can have a TDV extending between said transceiver structure and a pad. Per the original disclosure, the only transceiver structures with an associated TDV are bottom transceiver structures and therefore said transceiver structures cannot be over any other transceiver structure as claimed. See MPEP 2173.03.
None of dependent claims 16-20 address this deficiency and are rejected with base claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the one or more transceiver conductive structures comprise the first transceiver conductive structure, the second transceiver conductive structure” is unclear because it is missing a conjunction term and it is unclear if the applicant intends to mean “and” or “or”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a first transceiver conductive structure electrically connected with the second semiconductor die through the first semiconductor die; and a second transceiver conductive structure electrically connected with the third semiconductor die through the first semiconductor die as recited within the context of claim 21; claims 22-26 are dependents of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges claims 1 and 15 are in condition for allowance as they include previously objected allowable subject matter; this is nor persuasive as the claims are rejected over 35 USC 112.
No prior art rejection has been found for claims 1, 3-6 and 15-20.
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 ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818