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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al., US 2021/0193577.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses (figs. 1A-1J, and related text) an integrated circuit die stack (100a) comprising: a plurality of tier-one integrated circuit dice (18) disposed at a first tier of the integrated circuit die stack (fig. 1J): a bridge die (36) disposed at a second tier of the integrated circuit die stack and stacked vertically adjacent with the plurality of the tier-one integrated circuit dice (18) of the first tier (fig. 1J), the bridge die (36) including routing connection (27/31) coupled with at least two tier-one integrated circuit dice (18) and an integrated passive device (36, [0032]) disposed in the bridge die (the bridge include the passive device [0032]) adjacent (hence the passive device is adjacent to the routing connection 31/27)) and electrically coupled with the routing connection (31/27) (note the claim does not require an internal routing).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the integrated passive device is one of a capacitor, an inductor, a resistor [0032].
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses (figs. 1A-1J and related text) an integrated circuit die package assembly (100a) comprising: a package substrate (13); and an integrated circuit die stack (18/36) disposed above the package substrate (13), the integrated circuit die stack comprising: a first integrated circuit die and a second integrated circuit die (18 on the left and right) disposed at a first tier of the integrated circuit die stack (fig. 1J); and a bridge die (36) disposed at a second tier that is stacked vertically above the first tier (fig. 1J), the bridge die having a routing connection (31/27) coupled with both the first integrated circuit die and the second integrated circuit die (fig. 1J), the bridge die including an integrated passive device (([0032]), disposed adjacent to and electrically coupled ([0032]) with the routing connection (31/27) (note the claim does not require an internal routing).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the integrated passive device is one of a capacitor, an inductor, a resistor ([0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the first and second integrated circuit dice of the first tier are mounted on a package substrate (13).
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses (1A-1J and related text) a method for manufacturing an integrated circuit die stack comprising a plurality of tiers of integrated circuit dice, the method comprising: arranging a bridge die (36) of a second tier on top of two integrated circuit dice (18 on the left and 18 on the right) of a first tier, the bridge die comprising an integrated passive device [0032] disposed adjacent to and electrically coupled with a routing connection (31/27); forming an integrated circuit die stack (100a) by connecting the two integrated circuit dice (18) of the first tier via the routing connection (31/27) of the bridge die (36) of the second tier; and mounting the integrated circuit die stack on a package substrate (13) (note, the claim does not require an internal routing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claim 8, Lin does not disclose the bridge die comprises a through silicon via.
However, Lin in a different embodiment discloses a bridge die (36) comprising a through silicon via (60, fig. 3) to provide a semiconductor package and a manufacturing process thereof which need less process steps and low cost [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include the TSV as taught by Lin to provide a semiconductor package and a manufacturing process thereof which need less process steps and low cost [0011].
Claim(s) 3-5, 9 and 14-16 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view Yim et al., US 2024/0395720.
Regarding claim 3, Lin does not disclose the routing connections are coupled by a plurality of hybrid bonds of the at least two tier-one integrated circuit dice.
Yim discloses (fig. 1 and related text) routing connections are coupled by a plurality of hybrid bonds of at least two tier-one integrated circuit dice [0036] to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Lin and Yim are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin with specified features of Yim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include hybrid bonding as taught by Yim to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Regarding claim 4, Lin as modified by Yim does not disclose a pitch of the hybrid bonds is less than 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an appropriate size of the hybrid bond to meet the requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Lin does not disclose the routing connection is defined by a redistribution layer (RDL) formed on a substrate.
Yim discloses the routing connection is defined by a redistribution layer (RDL, 190) formed on a substrate (180).
Lin and Yim are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin with specified features of Yim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include the RDL as taught by Yim to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Regarding claim 9, Lin as modified by Yim discloses a tier-two integrated circuit die (Yim, fig. 1, (210/220) disposed at the second tier, wherein the tier-two integrated die of the second tier is entirely mounted on a top surface of one of a plurality of tier-one integrated circuit die (Yim, (130/140)).
Regarding claim 14, Lin does not disclose the routing connection is coupled by a plurality of hybrid bonds of the first and second integrated circuit dice.
Yim discloses (fig. 1 and related text) routing connections are coupled by a plurality of hybrid bonds of the first and second integrated circuit dice [0036] to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Lin and Yim are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin with specified features of Yim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include hybrid bonding as taught by Yim to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Regarding claim 15, Lin as modified by Yim does not disclose a pitch of the hybrid bonds is less than 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an appropriate size of the hybrid bond to meet the requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Lin does not disclose the routing connection is defined by a redistribution layer (RDL) formed on a substrate.
Yim discloses the routing connection is defined by a redistribution layer (RDL, 190) formed on a substrate (180).
Lin and Yim are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin with specified features of Yim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include the RDL as taught by Yim to make it possible to form I/Os with fine pitch [0056].
Claim(s) 6-7, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view Yim et al., and in further view of Tu et al., US 2023/0187479.
Regarding claim 6, Lin as modified by Yim does not disclose the integrated passive device is a deep trench capacitor, or a Metal-Insulator-Metal (MIM) capacitor.
Tu discloses an integrated passive device that is a Metal-Insulator-Metal (MIM) capacitor (250, fig. 1 and related text) to design an integrated MIM with smaller footprint and design flexibility [0014].
Lin, Yim and Tu are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin and Yim with specified features of Tu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin and Yim to include the MIM as taught by Tu to design an integrated MIM with smaller footprint and design flexibility [0014].
Regarding claim 7, Lin as modified by Yim and Tu discloses the routing connection is configured to carry data signals (Tu, fig. 1 and [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Lin as modified by Yim does not disclose the integrated passive device is a deep trench capacitor, or a Metal-Insulator-Metal (MIM) capacitor.
Tu discloses an integrated passive device that is a Metal-Insulator-Metal (MIM) capacitor (250, fig. 1 and related text) to design an integrated MIM with smaller footprint and design flexibility [0014].
Lin, Yim and Tu are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin and Yim with specified features of Tu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin and Yim to include the MIM as taught by Tu to design an integrated MIM with smaller footprint and design flexibility [0014].
Regarding claim 18, Lin as modified by Yim and Tu discloses the routing connection is configured to carry data signals (Tu, fig. 1 and [0015]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Yim in further view Chen et al., US 2022/0093564.
Regarding claim 10, Lin as modified by does not disclose a filler die disposed in a third tier of the integrated circuit die stack, the filler die not electrically connected to the tier-two integrated circuit die in the second tier.
Chen discloses a filler die/dummy die (140) disposed at a third tier vertically above the second tire of the integrated circuit die stack (110), the filler die not electrically connected to the tier-two integrated circuit die in the second tier (fig. 1) in order to increase yield and decrease costs [0017].
Lin and Chen are analogous art because they both are directed integrated circuits and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lin with specified features of Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin to include filler die/dummy die as taught by Chen to increase yield and decrease costs [0017].
Regarding claim 11, Lin and Yim as modified by Chen discloses a stiffener (160, an encapsulant can serve as a stiffener) surrounding the integrated circuit die stack (fig. 1), and a cover (160 also covers the sidewall) coupled to the stiffener and the filler die (140, fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lin does not disclose an internal routing connection of the bridge die adjacent to and electrically coupled with routing connection. As stated above in the rejections of the independent claims, Lin clearly discloses the bridge die including an integrated passive device (36, ([0032]), disposed adjacent to and electrically coupled ([0032]) with the routing connection (31/27). Furthermore, the claim does not require an internal routing connection. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an internal routing connection are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1653. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights