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 08/14/2023 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 08/14/2023 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 1-15 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, “located in a same signal channel”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear with regard to what is being claimed. The notion of a “signal channel”, and in particular the notion of a component of an invention being “in” a signal channel implies that the signal channel far from being a theoretical distinction, is somehow physically in contact with or lying upon the indicated signal channel. Furthermore, while the signal channel may refer to a signal available on the die’s respective connection pad, the presentation offered in the claims would render this interpretation circular. In other words, the claim states that the common location “in the signal channel” determines the connection to the signal pad, and not the reverse. It may of course be that the problems here lies simply with the absence of a clear definition of Applicant’s best understanding of the phrase. Paragraph [0002], for example, teaches, “A signal channel usually connects a plurality of ranks, and dies connected to different ranks and transmitting the same signal are usually connected to a same gold finger.” This seem to teach the converse of what is recited in the claim, rather than directly supporting what is recited in the claim. Furthermore, paragraph [0007]teaches, “two semiconductor dies connected to a same connection pads are respectively located in a first channel region and a second channel region of a signal channel.” This appears to indicate that the two semiconductor dies connected to a same connection pad, based on what is recited in the claim, while adjacent, according the claim, are nevertheless located in different channel regions - - another term lacking a clear definition in the disclosure.
The limitation, “and signal channels at least comprise a first signal channel”, as recited in claim 3, is unclear with regard to how this limitation further limits the remainder of the claim. While the limitation does say that a plurality must at least comprise a single member, it is unclear why such a plurality would not comprise at least such members. Is the Applicant merely trying to introduce the first signal channel as being a member of the set of signal channels?
The limitation, “wherein each two adjacent semiconductor dies in sequence located in the first signal channel are respectively connected to the first connection pad and the second connection pad”, as recited in claim 3, is unclear with regard to how the consistency of the definitions of the first and second connections pads can be maintained when the definition of the first signal was based on an arbitrary selected from a recited plurality of signal channels.
The limitation, “wherein the connection structures at least comprise first connection structures and second connection structures: wherein the first connection structures are used for connecting two adjacent semiconductor dies located in the first signal channels to the first connection pad; and the second connection structures are used for connecting another two adjacent semiconductor dies located in the first signal channel to the second connection pad”, as recited in claim 4, appears to lack sufficient detail for the ordinary artisan to know what are the features of the invention the Applicant wished to claim, and how those features allow the connection of the adjacent semiconductor dies to their respective connection pads.
Claim 1, (one independent claim) has not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims, hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F .2d 859, 134, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumption that must be made as to scope of the claims. Also see, In re Wilson, 424 F 2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) (if no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the claim is indefinite, not obvious).
Reference Cited
The reference of interest is cited: BAE et al. (US 20110193213 A1) in Fig. 6, e.g., teaches “a semiconductor stack structure”, at least comprising:
a substrate (120); connection pads (121) located on a surface of the substrate; and
a plurality of semiconductor dies located on the surface of the substrate
connection pads (121) located on a surface of the substrate; and
a plurality of semiconductor dies (200, 300) located on the surface of the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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