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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a signal per se: “positionally shift” signals. Signals themselves are not patent eligible subject matter, and are not properly element of device claims. See MPEP 2106.03: “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter.” (Emphasis added.) See also In re Nuijten, 500 F3d 1346, 1355-1356: “A transitory signal made of electrical or electromagnetic variances is not made of ‘parts’ or ‘devices’ in any mechanical sense. While such a signal is physical and real, it does not possess concrete structure in the sense implied by these definitions. No part of the signal — the crests or troughs of the electromagnetic wave, or perhaps the particles that make it up (modern physics teaches that both features are present simultaneously) is a mechanical ‘device’ or ‘part.’ A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a ‘machine’ as that term is used in § 101.” Thus, a device claim that includes a signal as an element is not a proper device claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims recite “positionally shift signals.” The most straightforward interpretation of this is that it refers to the signal passing through the die. Another interpretation would be that these refer to signal paths. As set forth in In re Miyazaki, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008). The examiner will here interpret this as referring to signal paths.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilert (20050010725) in view of Vogt, US 2013/0272049
Regarding Claim 1, in Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0005, 0017 and 0028, Eilert discloses an apparatus comprising: a die stack 104/106; and a plurality of signals 116 arranged across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals are manipulated to form a unique identifier for each die included in the die stack (see paragraphs 0017 and 0025). Eilert et al. fails to disclose the added limitation of positionally shifting signal (paths). However, Vogt et al. discloses a stacked die structure where in Fig. 4, the required positionally shifting in signal (paths ) is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the positionally shifting in signal (paths) in Eilert et al. as taught by Vogt et al. in order to be identify the individual dies in stacked die structure.
Regarding Claim 2, in Eilert, the plurality of signals comprise a plurality of immutable binary signals that are manipulated at least in part by swizzling to form the unique identifier for each die included in the die stack.
Regarding Claim 3, in Eilert, wherein the unique identifiers comprise: a first unique identifier for a first die included in the die stack, the first unique identifier being formed by a first pattern of the plurality of signals; and a second unique identifier for a second die included in the die stack, the second unique identifier being formed by a second pattern of the plurality of signals.
Regarding Claim 4, in Eilert, the plurality of signals are manipulated at least in part by digital logic to form the unique identifier for each die included in the die stack.
Regarding Claim 5, in Eilert, the unique identifiers collectively amount to a number that is at least twice as high as a total number of signals included in the plurality of signals.
Regarding Claim 6, in Eilert, the digital logic comprises at least one of: a linear-feedback shift register; a digital adder; or a digital subtractor.
Regarding Claim 7, in Eilert, the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal that is shifted in one direction relative to a certain sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack; and second and third signals that are shifted in another direction opposite the one direction between the first die and the second die.
Regarding Claim 8, in Eilerts, wherein: the certain sequence comprises a first position, a second position, and a third position aligned across the die stack; and the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal coupled to the first position on the first die; a second signal coupled to the second position on the first die; and a third signal coupled to the third position on the first die.
Regarding Claim 9, in Eilert, the first signal is shifted to a final position in the certain sequence on the second die; the second signal is shifted to the first position on the second die; and the third signal is shifted to the second position on the second die.
Regarding Claim 10, in Eilert, the final position in the certain sequence is the third position.
Regarding Claim 11, in Eilert, the plurality of signals comprises a fourth signal that is coupled to a fourth position in the certain sequence on the first die and is shifted to the third position on the second die.
Regarding Claim 12, in Eilert, the first signal is shifted to the third position on a third die included in the die stack; the second signal is shifted to the final position on the third die; the third signal is shifted to the first position on the third die; and the fourth signal is shifted to the second position on the third die.
Regarding Claim 13, in Eilert the first signal is shifted to the second position on a fourth die included in the die stack; the second signal is shifted to the third position on the fourth die; the third signal is shifted to the final position on the fourth die; and the fourth signal is shifted to the first position on the fourth die.
Regarding Claim 14, in Eilert, wherein the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die are duplicates of one another.
Regarding Claim 15, in Eilert, the certain sequence is arranged at a specific location relative to the first die; and the certain sequence is arranged at the specific location relative to the second die.
Regarding Claim 16, in Eilert, a base die that is coupled to the die stack, wherein a number of dies included in the die stack corresponds to a number of signals included in the plurality of signals.
Regarding Claim 17, in Eilert, Figs 1 and 2 and in paragraphs 0005, 0017 and 0028, a base die; a die stack; and a plurality of signals arranged across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals are manipulated to form a unique identifier for each die included in the die stack. Eilert et al. fails to disclose the added limitation of positionally shifting signal (paths). However, Vogt et al. discloses a stacked die structure where in Fig. 4, the required positionally shifting in signal (paths ) is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the positionally shifting in signal (paths) in Eilert et al. as taught by Vogt et al. in order to be identify the individual dies in stacked die structure.
Regarding Claim 18, in Eilert, the plurality of signals comprise a plurality of immutable binary signals that are manipulated at least in part by swizzling to form the unique identifier for each die included in the die stack.
Regarding Claim 19, in Eilert, the plurality of signals are manipulated at least in part by digital logic to form the unique identifier for each die included in the die stack.
Regarding Claim 20, in Figs 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0005, 0017 and 0028, Eilert discloses coupling a base die to a die stack; arranging a plurality of signals across the die stack; and manipulating the plurality of signals to form a unique identifier for each die included in the die stack. Eilert et al. fails to disclose the added limitation of positionally shifting signal (paths). However, Vogt et al. discloses a stacked die structure where in Fig. 4, the required positionally shifting in signal (paths ) is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the positionally shifting in signal (paths) in Eilert et al. as taught by Vogt et al. in order to be identify the individual dies in stacked die structure.
Examiner is including Nakanishi (2011/0194326)(Fig. 7, paragraphs 0063) and Yamamoto (20140205056)(paragraphs 0015 and 0023) as pertinent prior art references that are NOT RELIED UPON on this rejection but that do disclose positionally shifting of the signal (paths).
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 FAZLI ERDEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/FAZLI ERDEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights