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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to the restriction requirement mailed on 11/12/2025, the Applicant elected Group I encompassing method claims 1-15 without traverse on 01/12/2026. Non-elected Group I encompassing device claims 16-20 has been withdrawn from examination.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and the elected claims 1-15 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
An information disclosure statement submitted on 12/11/2025 ("12-11-25 IDS”) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 12-11-25 IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 are directed to an abstract idea and the claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), 134 S. Ct. 2347.
Regarding independent claim 1, as a representative claim, independent claim 1 recites the following (Highlighted portions in bold of the claim constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements," if any):
A method comprising:
identifying a first interconnect of a plurality of interconnects between a first substrate and a second substrate, wherein the first substrate is configured to be hybrid bonded to the second substrate;
receiving a first target resistance for the first interconnect; and
determining a first design for the first interconnect such that the first interconnect has an actual resistance less than or equal to the first target resistance, wherein determining the first design for the first interconnect comprises:
determining a first number of vias for the first interconnect, wherein the first number of vias connect a first contact pad of the first substrate to a second contact pad of the second substrate when the first substrate is hybrid bonded to the second substrate.
As to the first step of the patent eligibility analysis (Step 2A, First Prong), the highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea, because it is directed to an abstract idea of for being directed to a mental process. According to Section 2106.04(a)(2)III.C., "Claims can recite a metal process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Presumably, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to mentally identify a first interconnect to be hybrid bonded, read or obtain a first target resistance by hand and determining a first design for the first interconnect which involved mentally determining a first number of vias for the first interconnect. Whether or not a determination may take a long time to complete does not foreclose on the human mind to make these determinations.
As to the second step of the patent eligibility analysis (Step 2A, Second Prong), examiner believes that as currently recited, the judicial exception of the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception for the following reasons:
First, the claim 1 fails to improve the function of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. That is, as currently recited, claim 1 is not particularly integrated into a particular practical application.
Second, no additional element has been recited. Even if an additional element such as a “computer” were recited, without particular features or details unlike the neural network training example provided in Section 2106.04(a)(1) of the MPEP, the additional element would not rescue claim 1 from being directed to an abstract idea.
Third, there is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing to the extent seen in Diehr.
Third, even if "a computer" is implicitly used, the computer fails to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Hence, there exists a strong need to prevent such claim from preempting all applications of the judicial exception of the abstract idea.
As to last step of the patent-eligible analysis (Step 2B), the Step 2B requires an examination of "the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application...A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. at 1982 (internal citations omitted).
Here, as mention above in Step 2A, Second Prong, claim 1 fails to recite an additional element.
Even if an additional element of "a computer” were implicitly recited in the claim 1, but it is not sufficient to make the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for two reasons:
First, using a computer is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. As such, the additional element does not meaningfully limit the claim to be more than just the abstract idea.
Second, the additional element above only generally links the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use, rather than narrowly limiting the claim to a particular technological process or apparatus which is being improved by the use of the abstract idea. As such, the claim as a whole is a "fundamental building block of human ingenuity" which would tend to monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of possible inventions, rather than be narrowly limited to a particular application of the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-8, none of the dependent claims 2-8 recite additional method steps that may rescue its base claim from being directed to an abstract idea. Moreover, none of the claims 2-8 contain additional elements that can be construed to rescue the claims 2-8 as being significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Rather than being a particular limited application of the abstract idea which serves to improve a specific method or device, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 9, Maple (Pub. No. US 2017/0018478 A1 to Maple et al.) forming the first structure (see Figs. 6A-6F), wherein forming the first structure comprises:
forming a metal layer 625, 628 (para [0102] - “a third capture pad 625…a third trace 628…”) over a substrate 618;
forming a dielectric layer 630 (para [0099] - “. Alternatively, if the material used for the first and second layers 601, 602 (and subsequent layers described below) were a photo-imageable dielectric material…”; para [0103] - “a fifth layer 630”; para [0096] - “Many of these details are often not repeated in order to avoid obscuring the presently described representative embodiments. Moreover, many aspects of the method are described in above-referenced U.S. Pat. No. 8,946,904, and are often not repeated.”) over the metal layer 625, 628;
etching a first number of vias 632 (para [0103] - “via openings 632”) of the first interconnect in the dielectric layer 630, wherein each via of the first number of vias 632 extends from a top surface of the dielectric layer 630 down to a first contact pad 625 of the metal layer 625, 628; and
etching a second number of vias 633 of the second interconnect in the dielectric layer 630, wherein each via of the second number of vias 633 extends from the top surface of the dielectric layer 630 down to a second contact pad 628 of the metal layer 625, 628, wherein the first number of vias (five) is different than the second number of vias (one).
Nevertheless, independent claim 9 is allowed, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9,
determining a first target resistance for a first interconnect between a first structure and a second structure;
determining a second target resistance for a second interconnect between the first structure and the second structure;
wherein the first number of vias is based on the first target resistance,
wherein the second number of vias is based on the second target resistance.
Claims 10-15 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed independent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2024/0136267 A1 to Lee et al.
Pub. No. US 2020/0411600 A1 to Yang et al.
Pub. No. US 2008/0244489 A1 to Tanamoto et al.
Pub. No. US 2006/0027919 A1 to Ali et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano, can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
11 March 2026