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
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 02/29/2024 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 02/07/2024 have been considered.
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 1-10, 14, and 18 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.
The limitation, “a second semiconductor die spaced apart from the first semiconductor die”, as recited in claims 1 and 6, is unclear with regard to Applicant’s intended meaning for the phrase. In order not to be inherent and therefore moot limitation (two dice of course cannot occupy the same volume, or have portions that occupy the same volume, and so are necessarily ‘spaced apart’ in the broadest possible sense of the phrase), the limitation is generally understood to mean that no parts of the two dice overlap one another, typically when viewed from above. In the instant case, however, it appears unavoidable, given other elements of the claim, that the two dice do overlap.
The limitation, “average width of the plurality of first pillars”, as recited in claims 6-10, and 14, is unclear with regard to how Applicant intended meaning for the recited “width” of the plurality of pillars. One possibility of course, is that the pluralities, being in array form according to certain parts of the disclosure, may have a width that is understood to be the area covered by the array. Another possibility, however, is that Applicant merely intents to say that the average of the widths of the pillars are different. A perusal of the drawings, though, where the pillars appear to have substantially identical individual widths, suggests that the Applicant may have meant to recite limitations concerning the spacing and/or the density of the pillars in the respective regions, although this possibility is rather far from the plain text of the claim.
The limitation, “average width of the plurality of third pillars”, and , “average width of the plurality of second pillars”, as recited in claim 18, is unclear with regard to how Applicant intended meaning for the recited “width” of the plurality of pillars. One possibility of course, is that the pluralities, being in array from according to certain parts of the disclosure, may have a width that is understood to be the area covered by the array. Another possibility, however, is that Applicant merely intends to say that the average of the widths of the pillars differ in a certain way. A perusal of the drawings, though, where the pillars appear to have substantially identical individual widths, suggests that the Applicant may have meant to recite limitations concerning the spacing and/or the density of the pillars in the respective regions, although the possibility, is rather far from the plain text of the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine 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 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 Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-7, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,905,527 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 6-7, and 10 of the instant Application No. 18/435,628, and claim 4 of the US Patent No. 9905527 B1 are drawn to the same features and any differences are minor and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. To further clarify, the examiner understood the lateral density of the first pillars e.g., (In US Patent 9,905,527 B1) is determined by the width of the pillars of claim 6 of the instant Application).
Claims 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the US Patent (US Patent 9,905,527) claimed substantially “An apparatus, comprising: a first semiconductor die having a first region and a second region discrete from the first region; a second semiconductor die spaced apart from the first semiconductor die; a plurality of first pillars extending from the first region of the first semiconductor die toward the second semiconductor die”, but does not further claim “a plurality of second pillars, wherein a minimum lateral spacing between the plurality of first pillars is different than a minimum lateral spacing between the plurality of second pillars, or an average height of the plurality of second pillars is less than an average height of the plurality of first pillars” as claimed in claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE J CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-1726. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5.30.
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, ZANDRA SMITH can be reached at (571) 272 2429. 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.
/JASMINE J CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899