Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/360,555

SEMICONDUCTOR DIE STACKING ARCHITECTURE AND CONNECTION METHOD THEREFORE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
NICELY, JOSEPH C
Art Unit
2813
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sandisk Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
603 granted / 781 resolved
+9.2% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a transmission means formed on a first connection means associated with the first semiconductor die, the ramp means and second connection means associated with the second semiconductor die, wherein the transmission means electrically connects the first and second connection means" in claim 14. The Examiner interprets that “formed on a first connection means” recites sufficient structure to preclude the limitation from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The other uses of the term “means” in claim 14, such as with “ramp means”, “first connection means”, and “second connection means” are not modified by functional language and thus fail the second prong of the 3-prong analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and also will not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al (US 2021/0217701 and Huang hereinafter). As to claims 1, 2, 5: Huang discloses [claim 1] a stack of semiconductor dies (Figs. 1 and 4C; 110, 120, and 130; [0024] and [0028]) for a semiconductor package (100; [0024]), comprising: a first semiconductor die (110; [0024] and [0028]); a second semiconductor die (120; [0024] and [0028]) stacked on top of the first semiconductor die (110), the first semiconductor die (100) and the second semiconductor die (120) defining a step corner (C1; [0035]) between a surface (110a; [0035]) of the first semiconductor die (110) and a sidewall (120s; [0035]) of the second semiconductor die (120); a step ramp (160; [0024]) formed in the step corner (C1); and a transmission line (210/411 and 412; [0024] and [0051]) formed on a first bond pad (111; [0025]) associated with the first semiconductor die (110), the step ramp (160) and a second bond pad (121; [0026]) associated with the second semiconductor die (120), wherein the transmission line (210/411 and 412) electrically connects ([0029]) the first (111) and second (121) bond pads; [claim 2] wherein the step ramp (160) is formed from a polymer (polyimide; [0039]); [claim 5] further comprising a metal coating (413; [0051]-[0052]) provided over the transmission line (210/411 and 412), the first bond pad (111) and the second bond pad (121); [claim 6] wherein the metal coating (413) is copper (the conductive layer 210 can be copper and the seed layer 412 of transmission layer can be copper and 413 is referred to as a conductive layer, which Examiner interprets that 413 can be copper as well from the list of conductive layers of [0031]; [0031] and [0052]). As to claims 8 and 11-13: Huang discloses [claim 8] a method for assembling a stack of semiconductor dies (110, 120, and 130; [0058]) for a semiconductor package (Figs. 6A-6L), comprising: stacking a second semiconductor die (Fig. 6A; 120; [0058]) on a first semiconductor die (110) to form the stack of semiconductor dies, the first semiconductor die (110) and the second semiconductor die (120) defining a step corner (Fig. 1; C1; [0035]) between a surface (110a; [0035]) of the first semiconductor die (110) and a sidewall (120s; [0035]) of the second semiconductor die (120); forming a step ramp (Fig 6D; 160; [0061]) in the step corner (C1); and forming a transmission line (Fig. 6E; 520; [0062]) over a first bond pad (111; [0058] and [0062]) associated with the first semiconductor die (110), the step ramp (160) and a second bond pad (121; [0058] and [0062]) associated with the second semiconductor die (120), wherein the transmission line (520) electrically connects ([0029]) the first (111) and second (121) bond pads; [claim 11] further comprising forming a metal coating (Fig. 6I; 540; [0066]) over at least a portion of the transmission line (520), the first bond pad (111) and the second bond pad (121); [claim 12] wherein the metal coating (540) is copper (the conductive layer 210 can be copper and the seed layer 520 of transmission layer can be copper and 540 is referred to as a conductive layer, which Examiner interprets that 540 can be copper as well from the list of conductive layers of [0031]; [0031] and [0066]); [claim 13] wherein the step ramp (160) is formed from a polymer (polyimide; [0039]). As to claims 14, 15, 18, and 19: Huang discloses [claim 14] a stack of semiconductor dies (Figs. 1 and 4C; 110, 120, and 130; [0024]) for a semiconductor package (100; [0024]), comprising: a first semiconductor die (110; [0024]); a second semiconductor die (120; [0024]) stacked on top of the first semiconductor die (110), the first semiconductor die (110) and the second semiconductor die (120) defining a step corner (C1; [0035]) between a surface (110a; [0035]) of the first semiconductor die (110) and a sidewall (120s; [0035]) of the second semiconductor die (120); a ramp means (160; [0036]) formed in the step corner (C1); and a transmission means (210/411 and 412; [0029] and [0052]) formed on a first connection means (111; [0025]) associated with the first semiconductor die (110), the ramp means (160) and a second connection means (121) associated with the second semiconductor die (120), wherein the transmission means (210/411 and 412) electrically connects ([0029]) the first (111) and second (121) connection means of the first (110) and second (120) semiconductor dies; [claim 15] wherein the ramp means (160) is formed from a polymer (polyimide; [0039]); [claim 18] further comprising a coating means (413; [0052]) provided over the transmission means (411 and 412), the first connection means (111) and the second connection means (121); [claim 19] wherein the coating means (413) is comprised of copper (the conductive layer 210 can be copper and the seed layer 412 of transmission layer can be copper and 413 is referred to as a conductive layer, which Examiner interprets that 413 can be copper as well from the list of conductive layers of [0031]; [0031] and [0052]). 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. 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 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cho et al (US 2004/0155322 and Cho hereinafter). As to claims 3 and 4: Although the structure disclosed by Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 8 above), it fails to expressly disclose: [claim 3] wherein the step ramp forms an approximate forty-five degree angle between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die; [claim 4] wherein the step ramp forms less than a forty-five degree angle between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die. Huang discloses the step ramp 160 but fails to expressly disclose the angle of the incline of the step ramp 160 that is used to aid in forming the transmission line 210/411 and 412. Cho discloses in Fig. 1 a die 10 with a step ramp 40 adjacent the sidewall 16 of the die 10 that aids in forming the transmission line 50 from the bonding pad 12 of the die 10 to a lower semiconductor structure, see [0033]-[0039]. Cho discloses [claim 3] wherein the step ramp (Fig. 1; 40; [0038]) forms an approximate forty-five degree angle (angle of the incline can be between 30 and 75 degrees; [0039]) between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die (10; [0038]); [claim 4] wherein the step ramp (40) forms less than a forty-five degree angle (angle of the incline can be between 30 and 75 degrees; [0039]) between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die (10). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the angle of the incline of the step ramp 160 of Huang using the angle of incline teaching of Cho to arrive at an angle of either 45 degrees or less than 45 degrees as the angle of incline of Cho overlaps with the claimed ranges in order to provide step ramp that allows for improved attachment and prevent shorts of the transmission line 210/411 and 412 of Huang (and 50 of Cho), see [0039]. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” As to claims 16 and 17: Although the structure disclosed by Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 10 above), it fails to expressly disclose: [claim 16] wherein the ramp means forms an approximate forty-five degree angle between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die; [claim 17] wherein the ramp means forms less than a forty-five degree angle between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die. Huang discloses the step ramp 160 but fails to expressly disclose the angle of the incline of the step ramp 160 that is used to aid in forming the transmission line 210/411 and 412. Cho discloses in Fig. 1 a die 10 with a step ramp 40 adjacent the sidewall 16 of the die 10 that aids in forming the transmission line 50 from the bonding pad 12 of the die 10 to a lower semiconductor structure, see [0033]-[0039]. Cho discloses [claim 16] wherein the ramp means (Fig. 1; 40; [0038]) forms an approximate forty-five degree angle (angle of the incline can be between 30 and 75 degrees; [0039]) between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die (10; [0038]); [claim 17] wherein the ramp means (40) forms less than a forty-five degree angle (angle of the incline can be between 30 and 75 degrees; [0039]) between the surface of the first semiconductor die and the sidewall of the second semiconductor die (10). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the angle of the incline of the step ramp 160 of Huang using the angle of incline teaching of Cho to arrive at an angle of either 45 degrees or less than 45 degrees as the angle of incline of Cho overlaps with the claimed ranges in order to provide step ramp that allows for improved attachment and prevent shorts of the transmission line 210/411 and 412 of Huang (and 50 of Cho), see [0039]. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Weiss et al (US 2021/0104464 and Weiss hereinafter). As to claim 7: Although the structure disclosed by Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 8 above), it fails to expressly disclose: wherein the first semiconductor die is associated with a plurality of bond pads and wherein each of the plurality of bond pads have a pitch of approximately thirty micrometers (µm). Huang discloses semiconductor dies that can be used in different applications. Weiss discloses that semiconductor dies can have high density interconnect (HDI) regions that comprise a plurality of bond pads where the bond pads can have a pitch between 10 and 100 microns, see [0050]. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the pitch between a plurality of bond pads to be 30 microns as the range of Weiss discloses a range for the pitch that overlaps with the claimed value in order to provide improved and fast communication between chips and external devices by decreasing the pitch size and increasing the number of bond pads, see [0002]. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” As to claim 20: Although the structure disclosed by Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 10 above), it fails to expressly disclose: wherein the first semiconductor die is associated with a plurality of connection means and wherein each of the plurality of connection means have a pitch of approximately thirty micrometers (µm). Huang discloses semiconductor dies that can be used in different applications. Weiss discloses that semiconductor dies can have high density interconnect (HDI) regions that comprise a plurality of bond pads where the bond pads can have a pitch between 10 and 100 microns, see [0050]. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the pitch between a plurality of bond pads to be 30 microns as the range of Weiss discloses a range for the pitch that overlaps with the claimed value in order to provide improved and fast communication between chips and external devices by decreasing the pitch size and increasing the number of bond pads, see [0002]. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Yamagishi (JP 3754171 and Yamagishi hereinafter; a machine translation is used as an English language equivalent). As to claims 9 and 10: Although the method disclosed by Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 9 above), it fails to expressly disclose: [claim 9] further comprising providing a photoresist layer over the step ramp, the first bond pad and the second bond pad prior to forming the transmission line; [claim 10] further comprising preparing the first bond pad and the second bond pad for the transmission line using a laser lithography process based, at least in part, on providing the photoresist layer over the first bond pad and the second bond pad. Huang discloses in Fig. 6C that before the transmission line 520 is formed, a photomask is used to etch the step ramp (polyimide) material 510. Yamagishi discloses in Figs. 3(a)-3(c) that a polyimide layer 47a formed over a conductive pad 42a can be patterned to expose the conductive pad 42a using a photoresist layer 49 over the polyimide layer 47a then using a laser (and thus a laser lithography process as a photoresist and laser are used) to expose the conductive pad 42a to allow a conductive line 51b be formed thereon, see [0037]-[0040]. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to use the method of patterning a polyimide film over a conductive pad to expose the conductive pad to allow for a connection to be made thereto using a laser lithography process and a photoresist as done in Yamagishi to pattern the polyimide step ramp material 510 of Huang as the process was well known in the art and applied to the same material in a similar structure and would have yielded the predictable results of selectively patterning the polyimide film to allow for further electrical connections to be made. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, EST. 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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. JOSEPH C. NICELY Primary Examiner Art Unit 2813 /JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813 12/30/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588438
LAYER STRUCTURES INCLUDING DIELECTRIC LAYER, METHODS OF MANUFACTURING DIELECTRIC LAYER, ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING DIELECTRIC LAYER, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588255
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581961
SUBSTRATE HAVING A DIE POSITION MARK AND A SEMICONDUCTOR DIE STACK STRUCTURE INCLUDING SEMICONDUCTOR DIES STACKED ON THE SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575341
METHOD FOR ANNEALING BONDING WAFERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575160
BACKSIDE AND FRONTSIDE CONTACTS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 781 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month