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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse device claims in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 11 and 64 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 claimed limitation of “the at least one bumper comprises the same material and is monolithic with a dielectric material of the substrate at the bonding surface”, as recited in claim 11, is unclear as to which element the at least one bumper comprises the same material with.
The claimed limitation of “a top exposed surface of the at least one die 12 bonded to the upper bonding surface is above a top exposed surface of the at least one die bonded to the recessed bonding surface, wherein a top exposed surface of at least one die bonded to the recessed bonding surface is a top bonding surface, and wherein at least one additional die is directly bonded to the top bonding surface”, as recited in claim 11, is unclear as to
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7, 18, 20, 59-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (5,729,050) or Sakuma (2023/0163100).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text a bonded structure comprising:
a substrate 10 that includes a bonding surface;
at least one bumper 16 extending above the bonding surface of the substrate; and
at least one die 12 directly bonded to the bonding surface adjacent the bumper.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text the at least one die is hybrid bonded to the bonding surface adjacent the bumper.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text the at least one bumper comprises a plurality of discontinuous bumper elements 16 surrounding the die pocket.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text a substrate 10 that includes a bonding surface,
the bonding surface including a plurality of bonding regions (arbitrarily chosen) for hybrid bonding; and
at least one bumper 16 extending above the bonding surface of the substrate,
the at least one bumper separating at least two of the plurality of bonding regions.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text at least one of the plurality of bonding regions (which are arbitrarily chosen) occupies a substantially differently shaped and/or sized footprint on the substrate than at least one other of the plurality of bonding regions.
Regarding claim 59, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text the plurality of discontinuous bumper elements 16 is located beside a plurality of edges of the at least one die.
Regarding claim 60, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text plurality of discontinuous bumper elements 16 frames a plurality of corners of the at least one die.
Regarding claim 61, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text the at least one bumper is integrally formed with the substrate.
Regarding claim 62, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text a substrate 10 that includes an upper surface;
a recessed bonding surface 10a below the upper surface of the substrate; and
at least one die 12 directly bonded to the recessed bonding surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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) 3, 5, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2016/0322453).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Kim does not teach in figure 9 and related text the at least one die has a thickness greater than a bumper height of the at least one bumper, and wherein the bumper height is between about 25 nm and 10 microns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the at least one die having a thickness greater than a bumper height of the at least one bumper, and wherein the bumper height is between about 25 nm and 10 microns in Park et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[Djiscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not teach in figure 9 and related text the at least one bumper surrounds the at least one die and defines a die pocket having a pocket width greater than a width of the at least one die by between about 2 microns and 7 microns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the at least one bumper surrounds the at least one die and defines a die pocket having a pocket width greater than a width of the at least one die by between about 2 microns and 7 microns in Park et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-15 and 22, Kim does not teach in figure 9 and related text the at least one bumper comprises the same material and is monolithic with a dielectric material of the substrate at the bonding surface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the at least one bumper comprises the same material and is monolithic with a dielectric material of the substrate at the bonding surface, and wherein the at least one bumper comprises a material different from a material of the substrate at the bonding surface, and wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor wafer an integrated circuit die, in Park et al.’s device, in order to use the device in an application which requires specific substrate.
Regarding the claimed limitations of using specific materials, it is noted that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
It is further held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Kim does not teach in figure 9 and related text the at least one bumper is a different material from a dielectric material of the substrate at the bonding surface and is fixed to the substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the at least one bumper is a different material from a dielectric material of the substrate at the bonding surface and is fixed to the substrate, in Park et al.’s device, in order to use the device in an application which requires specific substrate.
Claim(s) 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2016/0322453) in view of Hirose (2004/0183186).
Regarding claim 63, Kim teaches in figure 9 and related text that the upper surface of the substrate is an upper bonding surface, but does not teach that at least one additional die is directly bonded to the upper bonding surface.
Hirose teaches in figure 1 and related text that at least one additional die 3 is directly bonded to the upper bonding surface pf substrate 2.
Kim and Hirose are analogous art because they are directed to chips attached to a substrate and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to bond at least one additional die directly to the upper bonding surface of the substrate, as taught by Hirose, in Kim’s device, in order to reduce the real estate size of the device.
Regarding claim 64, in the combined device, a top exposed surface of the at least one die 12 bonded to the upper bonding surface is above a top exposed surface of the at least one die bonded to the recessed bonding surface, wherein a top exposed surface of at least one die bonded to the recessed bonding surface is a top bonding surface, and wherein at least one additional die is directly bonded to the top bonding surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 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 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).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
6/1/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights