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 .
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.
2. Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 defines “wherein a first part of the second gap-filling material physically contacts a second part of the first gap-filling material to form a vertical interface, and wherein the first part and the second part are formed of different materials” is indefinite. It is not clear or marked or defined which is a first part of the second gap-filling material or a second part of the first gap-filling material. How the material of the first part and second part is different? Is a second part is from the second ga-filling material? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 11.
Claim 24 defines “fifth edges and sixth edges” is not clear/consistent with claim 18 and 19 which define “a first outer edge, a second outer edge, a third outer edge, a fourth outer edge. “a fifth outer edge” and “a sixth outer edge” is recommended to be consistent with claims 18, 19.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d)may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-13, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-13, 16 of US Patent 11,189,599 in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0318246 A1). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 11: Claims 10 and 12 of ‘9599 teaches all the limitations.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 13 of ‘9599 teaches all the limitations.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 11 of ‘9599 teaches all the limitations.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 16 of ‘9599 teaches all the limitations.
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 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 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 11-16, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu et al (US 2015/0318246 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0006006 A1)
Regarding claim 11: Yu teaches in Fig. 46 about a package comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
681
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
643
1282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first device die;
a second device die bonded to a front side of the first device die;
a first gap-filling material (as marked) encircling the first device die to form a first package along with the first device die and the second device die;
a first through-via (TSV’s) penetrating through the first gap-filling material;
a third device die bonded to the first package, wherein the third device die is on a backside of the first device die, and the third device die is electrically connected to the second device die through the first through-via (As marked);
a second gap-filling material encircling the first package to form a second package along with the first package and the third device die, wherein a first part of the second gap-filling material physically contacts a second part of the first gap-filling material to form a vertical interface (as marked and for clarification, claim limitation is “region” and does not say different type of isolation regions or different isolating materials in first and second isolation regions and therefore in BRI two isolations regions are interpreted as the first and second isolation region) , wherein third edges (as marked) of the second isolation region are vertically aligned to respective fourth edges (as marked) of the third device die and wherein the first isolation region and the second isolation region form a distinguishable interface As marked, 4102 is molding compound and 3016 is isolation material which are two different materials type)., and wherein the first part and the second part are formed of different materials (as shown); and
a second through-via (TSV’s are tapered shape) penetrating through the second gap-filling material and electrically connected to the third device die.
Yu does not explicitly show a second through-via (TSV’s are tapered shape) penetrating through the second gap-filling material and electrically connected to the third device die.
However Yu teaches in [0080] Various conductive vias 4306 may electrically connect conductive features 4308 in dies 4302A, 4302B, 4302C, and 4302D from any point in the package. Such conductive vias 4306 may be provide vertical interconnects among dies 4302 (e.g., as illustrated by FIG. 43) and/or provide vertical and lateral interconnects among dies 4302 (e.g., as illustrated by FIG. 44). Conductive vias 4306 may extend at least partially through an isolation material 4304, which may be disposed around dies 4302B and 4302C. FIGS. 43 and 44 show but two possible configurations, and in alternative embodiments, the configuration of various dies and conductive vias may vary depending on device design.
Yu also teaches in [0019] die and wafer can be bonded by metal-to-metal-bonding and Kim teaches in Fig. 6-7 how different dies are connected by metal-to-metal bonding using the connection pads.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention to combine Kim’s teachings to Yu’s semiconductor device to stack dies in a vertical direction to have more miniaturized and multi-functioned compact packages to save space (Kim, [0003]) and have conductive vias through first or second gap filling materials depending on device design for electrical connections as needed.
Regarding claim 12: Kim teaches in Fig. 13 a fourth device die bonded to the second package, wherein the fourth device die is on a backside of the second device die, and the fourth device die is electrically connected to the third device die through the second through-via.
Regarding claim 13: As explained in claim 4, Yu teaches in Fig. 46 wherein a first dielectric layer in the first device die is physically joined to a second dielectric layer in the second device die, and a first bond pad in the first device die is physically joined to a second bond pad in the second device die.
Regarding claim 14: As explained in claim 3, Yu teaches in Fig. 46 wherein the first through-via has a first top end and a first bottom end wider than the first top end, and the second through-via has a second top end and a second bottom end narrower than the second top end.
Regarding claim 15: As explained in claims 3, 9, Yu teaches in Fig. 46 wherein the first device die comprises:
a first semiconductor substrate; and
a third through-via penetrating through the first semiconductor substrate, wherein the third through-via has a third top end and a third bottom end narrower than the third top end.
Regarding claim 16: As explained in claims 3, 9, Yu teaches in Fig. 46 wherein the second device die comprises:
a second semiconductor substrate; and
a fourth through-via penetrating through the second semiconductor substrate, wherein the fourth through-via has a fourth top end and a fourth bottom end wider than the fourth top end.
Regarding claims 18-19, 23: As explained in claim 11, 9, Yu in view of Kim teaches all the limitations. (For clarification, as marked below
PNG
media_image2.png
643
1282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yu further teaches in [0017] wherein each of the first device die, the second device die, the third device die comprises:
a semiconductor substrate; and
through-substrate vias penetrating through the semiconductor substrate.
Yu further teaches as marked below a through-dielectric via penetrating through the first gap-filling material, wherein the through-dielectric via electrically interconnects the second device die and the third device die.
PNG
media_image3.png
520
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20: Yu teaches as marked above a second through-via penetrating through the second isolation region and electrically connected to the third device die, wherein a first top width of the first through-via is smaller than a first bottom width of the first through-via, and a second top width of the second through-via is greater than a second bottom width of the second through-via (TSV’s are tapered shape).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 9 are allowed.
For claim 1, Yu in view of Kim does not explicitly teach the limitation “a fourth device die over and joined to the second device die, wherein both of fusion bonds and metal-to-metal direct bonds exist between the fourth device die and the second device die; and a third isolation region encapsulating the first device die, the second device die, the third device die, the first isolation region, and the second isolation region therein, wherein fifth edges of the fourth device die are vertically aligned to sixth edges of the third isolation region” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9 are also allowed being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The limitation allowable is “wherein the vertical interface is perpendicular to a horizontal interface between the first device die and the second device die, and the vertical interface is flush with a respective edge of the second device die.” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The limitation allowable is “a fourth device die over and bonded to the second device die through both of fusion bonds and metal-to-metal direct bonds; and a third gap-filling material encapsulating the first device die, the second device die, the third device die, the first gap-filling material, and the second gap-filling material therein, wherein fifth edges of the fourth device die are vertically aligned to sixth edges of the third gap-filling material” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image4.png
643
1282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches in [0080] Various conductive vias 4306 may electrically connect conductive features 4308 in dies 4302A, 4302B, 4302C, and 4302D from any point in the package. Such conductive vias 4306 may be provide vertical interconnects among dies 4302 (e.g., as illustrated by FIG. 43) and/or provide vertical and lateral interconnects among dies 4302 (e.g., as illustrated by FIG. 44). Conductive vias 4306 may extend at least partially through an isolation material 4304, which may be disposed around dies 4302B and 4302C. FIGS. 43 and 44 show but two possible configurations, and in alternative embodiments, the configuration of various dies and conductive vias may vary depending on device design.
Regarding claim 18, as explained above "a through-dielectric via penetrating through the first gap-filling material, wherein the through-dielectric via electrically interconnects the second device die and the third device die."
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 MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights