DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed 4 June 2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of the Group IA, Species I embodiment in the reply filed on 4 June 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that:
The elected product claims and the method claims are not so distinct as to justify permanent separation at this stage. The method claims are directed to making the same integrated circuit die package assembly using the same dual-sided bridge die architecture recited in the product claims. The search and examination of the elected claims will necessarily involve the same core inventive concepts, that is, a dual-sided bridge die having redistribution layers on opposite sides of a substrate, with the redistribution layers configured to couple to dice above and below the bridge die. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the alleged burden is not commensurate with the substantial overlap in subject matter.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 4 June 2026) at 7. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because none of Applicant’s grounds for traversal substantially address any criteria for restriction between process of making and process made. See MPEP § 806.05(f). Applicant’s assertions are entirely conclusory, and at no point does Applicant address fact that the IC package and die can be formed by another materially different process, noted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 27 April 2026. See Requirement for Restriction/Election (mailed 27 April 2026) at 2. Even in light of Applicant’s arguments, the Requirement for Restriction clearly establishes that the inventions are independent and distinct, and those differences noted in the Requirement for Restriction provide prima facie evidence that a serious search burden exists. See id. at 2-10; see also MPEP § 806.05(f); see also MPEP § 802.02
Applicant’s traversal is further on the grounds that:
The Office Action characterizes claims 1-7 as a subcombination directed to a dual- sided bridge die, and claims 8-18 as a combination directed to an integrated circuit die package. Applicant respectfully submits that the alleged distinction is overstated because the combination claims require the same dual-sided bridge die architecture that is the subject of the elected subcombination claims. In particular, the package claims depend on and incorporate the functional role of the dual-sided bridge die in providing lateral communication within the die stack.
The elected bridge-die claims are not merely an unrelated component. Rather, the dual-sided bridge die is the central inventive structure enabling the package-level benefits described in the specification, including shortened routing distance, improved signal integrity, high-density interconnect, and improved mechanical rigidity/warpage resistance. Thus, examination of the elected bridge-die claims will substantially overlap with examination of the package claims.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 4 June 2026) at 7. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because none of Applicant’s grounds for traversal substantially address any criteria for restriction between a combination and subcombination. See MPEP § 806.05(c). Applicant’s assertions are entirely conclusory, and at no point does Applicant address the showing that the combination as claimed (A) does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability (to show novelty and unobviousness), and (B) the subcombination is shown to have utility either by itself or in another materially different combination, noted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 27 April 2026. See Requirement for Restriction/Election (mailed 27 April 2026) at 3. Even in light of Applicant’s arguments, the Requirement for Restriction clearly establishes that the inventions are independent and distinct, and those differences noted in the Requirement for Restriction provide prima facie evidence that a serious search burden exists. See id. at 2-10; see also MPEP § 806.05(c); see also MPEP § 802.02.
Applicant’s traversal is further on the grounds that:
Applicant respectfully traverses the requirement for election among Species 1, Species 2, and Species 3 because claim 1 is generic to the disclosed species.
Claim 1 recites a dual-sided bridge die comprising:
a substrate;
a first redistribution layer built on a top surface of the substrate and configured to couple with a bottom surface of a first integrated circuit die; and
a second redistribution layer built on a bottom surface of the substrate and configured to couple with a top surface of a second integrated circuit die.
Claim 1 does not require the particular passive-device arrangement of FIG. 3A, the particular passive-device sharing/routing arrangement of FIG. 3B, or the active circuitry disposed in the substrate as shown in FIG. 3C.
Instead, claim 1 is directed to the common dual-sided bridge-die architecture shared by the disclosed embodiments.
Applicant therefore respectfully submits that claim 1 is a generic claim that reads on multiple disclosed species. The Office Action itself states that "currently, Claim 1 appears generic." Applicant agrees with that characterization and respectfully requests that claim 1 be examined as a generic claim.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 4 June 2026) at 8-9. Applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive because none of Applicant’s grounds for traversal substantially address any criteria for restriction between mutually exclusive species. See MPEP § 806.04(f). Even in light of Applicant’s arguments, the differences between embodiments noted in the Requirement for Restriction/Election provide prima facie evidence that a serious search burden exists. See Requirement for Restriction/Election (mailed 27 April 2026) at 6-10.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6 and 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0063066 (filed Aug. 19, 2022) (hereinafter “Karhade”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Karhade discloses: A dual-sided bridge die comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 2A, depicting, e.g., IC die 104-4 including a substrate, [0026], [0083]);
a first redistribution layer built on a top surface of the substrate (FIG. 2A, depicting a layer including interconnects 106 built on a top surface of the IC die 104-4, [0035], [0075]) and configured to couple with a bottom surface of a first integrated circuit die (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the interconnects 106 built on a top surface of the IC die 104-4 are configured to couple with a bottom surface of an IC die, e.g., IC die 104-6, [0026], [0083]); and
a second redistribution layer built on a bottom surface of the substrate (FIG. 2A, depicting a layer including interconnects 106 built on a bottom surface of the IC die 104-4, [0035], [0075]) and configured to couple with a top surface of a second integrated circuit die (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the interconnects 106 built on a bottom surface of the IC die 104-4 are configured to couple with a top surface of an IC die, e.g., IC die 104-1, [0026], [0083]),
wherein the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate are respectively disposed on opposite sides of the substrate (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the top surface and the bottom surface of the IC die 104-4 are respectively disposed on opposite sides of the substrate).
Regarding claim 2, Karhade further discloses wherein the first and second redistribution layers comprise a plurality of hybrid bonds (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the interconnects 106 include hybrid bonds formed between bond pads and dielectric-dielectric bonds, [0081]) and routing connections (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the interconnects include metal portions extending from the bond pads, [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Karhade further discloses wherein a pitch of the hybrid bonds is less than 10 μm (FIG. 2A; [0081]: “In various embodiments, interconnects 106 may have a linear dimension of less than 5 micrometers and a pitch of less than 10 micrometers between adjacent interconnects.”).
Regarding claim 4, Karhade further discloses a passive device and/or an active device (FIG. 2A; [0027]: “Unless described otherwise, IC dies described herein include one or more IC structures (or, simply, “ICs”) implementing (i.e., configured to perform) certain functionality.”).
Regarding claim 5, Karhade further discloses a plurality of through silicon vias (FIG. 6, depicting TSVs 122, [0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Karhade further discloses wherein the first redistribution layer and the second redistribution layer comprise an identical arrangement of hybrid bonds and routing connections (FIG. 2A, depicting wherein the interconnects 106 each have an identical arrangement including hybrid bonds formed between bond pads and dielectric-dielectric bonds and metal portions extending from the bond pads).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Nos.: 2024/0395720 (filed Dec. 26, 2023) (disclosing a bridge die and package substantially identical to that claimed by Applicant); 2021/0193577 (filed Dec. 18, 2019) (disclosing a bridge die similar to that claimed by Applicant); 2023/0074181 (filed Sept. 7, 2021) (disclosing a bridge die including TSVs); 2023/0095134 (filed Mar. 18, 2022) (disclosing a bridge die and package substantially identical to that claimed by Applicant).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights