DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the communications dated 07/06/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Remarks
2. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection. See details below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAS et al. (US 2017/0092621) in view of Lin et al. (US 2025/0125273)
Regarding claim 1, DAS discloses a device comprising:
a bottom die layer comprising at least a bottom die 2110 and a bridge die 2120 or 2130 (bridging between the die above and the die below, or between the adjacent dies; see also para. 0057) adjacent to the bottom die 2110 (see fig. 1B); and
a top die layer 110 positioned on the bottom die layer and comprising a top die 110 that covers an entire surface area of all dies in the bottom die layer positioned under the top die.
DAS fails to disclose:
Wherein the bridge die comprises an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface.
Lin discloses:
A bottom/bridge die 252 (see Fig. 4C), a top die 201 positioned on the bottom/bridge die 252, wherein the bridge die 252 comprises an oxide surface 52 and the top die 210 is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface 52. See paras. 0015, 0118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of DAS so that the bridge die of DAS would include an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface, as that/those taught by Lin, in order to take the advantages of hybrid bonding such as higher interconnect bonding density, lower electrical resistance, better thermal performance, etc.
Regarding claim 2, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bridge die 2120/2130 includes an interconnect extending through the bridge die and coupled to the top die 110. See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 3, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the interconnect corresponds to a through-silicon via (TSV). See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 4, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein an area of the top die 110 exceeds an area of the bottom die 2110 and sidewalls of the top die extend beyond the bottom die and the bridge die. See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 5, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, where the top die is hybrid bonded to the bottom die. See the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bridge die 2130 corresponds to a passive device die. See fig. 1B, and paras. 0097-0099 of DAS.
Regarding claim 7, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bridge die 2120 corresponds to an active device die. See fig. 1B, and paras. 0097-0099 of DAS.
Regarding claim 8, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bridge die comprises a silicon structure. See paras. 0097-0099 of DAS.
Regarding claim 9, DAS/Lin discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the bottom die layer comprises a plurality of bridge dies 2120, 2130 adjacent to the bottom die. See Fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 10, DAS discloses a system comprising:
a substrate 1120 or 1110;
a first die tier positioned on the substrate and comprising:
a bottom die 2110; and
a bridge die 2120 and/or 2130 adjacent to the bottom die and comprising an interconnect extending through the bridge die; and
a second die tier 110 positioned on the first die tier and comprising a top die 110 that completely covers an entire surface area of all dies of the first die tier positioned under the top die.
DAS fails to disclose:
Wherein the bridge die comprises an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface.
Lin discloses:
A bottom/bridge die 252 (see Fig. 4C), a top die 201 positioned on the bottom/bridge die 252, wherein the bridge die 252 comprises an oxide surface 52 and the top die 210 is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface 52. See paras. 0015, 0118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of DAS so that the bridge die of DAS would include an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface, as that/those taught by Lin, in order to take the advantages of hybrid bonding such as higher interconnect bonding density, lower electrical resistance, better thermal performance, etc.
Regarding claim 11, DAS/Lin discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the interconnect corresponds to a through-silicon via (TSV). See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 12, DAS/Lin discloses the system of claim 10, wherein an area of the top die 110 exceeds an area of the bottom die 2110 and sidewalls of the top die extend beyond the bottom die and the bridge die. See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claims 13-17, DAS/Lin discloses the system comprising all claimed limitations. See the rejections of claims 5-9, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, DAS discloses a method comprising:
attaching, to a carrier wafer 180 or 1120, a first die tier comprising a bottom die 2110 and a bridge die 2120 and/or 2130;
creating an interconnect through the bridge die (via interconnect structure; see paras. 0097-0099);
bonding, to the first die tier, a second die tier 110 comprising a top die 110 that covers an entire surface area of all dies in the first die tier bonded to the top die; and
removing the carrier wafer 180 or 1120.
DAS fails to disclose:
Wherein the bridge die comprises an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface.
Lin discloses:
A bottom/bridge die 252 (see Fig. 4C), a top die 201 positioned on the bottom/bridge die 252, wherein the bridge die 252 comprises an oxide surface 52 and the top die 210 is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface 52. See paras. 0015, 0118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of DAS so that the bridge die of DAS would include an oxide surface and the top die is hybrid bonded to the oxide surface, as that/those taught by Lin, in order to take the advantages of hybrid bonding such as higher interconnect bonding density, lower electrical resistance, better thermal performance, etc.
Regarding claim 19, DAS/Lin discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising coupling the top die 110 to the interconnect. See fig. 1B of DAS.
Regarding claim 20, DAS/Lin discloses the method of claim 18, wherein bonding the second die tier to the first die tier further comprising hybrid bonding the second die tier to the first die tier. See the rejection of claim 18.
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dao H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1791. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke, can be reached on (571)272-1657. The fax numbers for all communication(s) is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571)272-1633.
/Dao H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights