DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 3/20/26 is acknowledged.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mehta et al (WO/2018/125170).
With respect Claim 1, Mehta et al discloses a chip-to-wafer (C2W) structure (Figure 4A-4F and corresponding text, especially paragraph 9 and 13) comprising: a first semiconductor substrate (Figure 4E, 414); a plurality of chips (Figure 4E, 104) located above the first semiconductor substrate (Figure 4E, 414); a dielectric layer (Figure 4E, 216) covering the first semiconductor substrate; and a second semiconductor substrate (Figure 4E, 106) covering the plurality of chips (Figure 4E, 104) and the dielectric layer (Figure 4E, 216. See Figures 4E and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 27-38.
With respect to Claim 2, Mehta et al disclose wherein at least one first trench (Figure 4E, 402) is formed in the second semiconductor substrate (Figure 4E, 106), wherein the first trench extends from a first surface of the second semiconductor substrate that is in contact with the plurality of chips into the second semiconductor substrate. See Figure 4E and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 3, Mehta et al disclose wherein a plurality of first trenches (Figure 4E, 402 and paragraph 27; singulation trench) are formed in the second semiconductor substrate, wherein the plurality of first trenches are arranged in a mesh structure along a first direction and a second direction. The Examiner takes Official Notice that singulation trenches would inherently result in a mesh pattern.
With respect to Claim 4, Mehta et al disclose wherein a plurality of first trenches are formed in the second semiconductor substrate, wherein the plurality of first trenches form a plurality of trench regions, and wherein each trench region is aligned with a corresponding chip. See Figures 4A-4C.
With respect to Claim 5, Mehta et al disclose wherein a metal layer or a thermally conductive fluid (epoxy 216) is provided in the at least one first trench. See Figure 4E, 216 and corresponding text, especially paragraph 35.
With respect to Claim 7, Mehta et al disclose wherein a second trench (Figure 4A, 412, contact pads form a trench in dielectric layer 216 of 4E) is formed in the dielectric layer, wherein the second trench extends from a second surface of the dielectric layer that is in contact with the second semiconductor substrate into the dielectric layer. See Figures 4A and 4E and corresponding trench.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al (WO/2018/125170).
Mehta et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Mehta et al does not disclose “wherein the at least one first trench has a depth to width ratio lying between 1:1 and 2:1”, as required by present Claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the limitation “wherein the at least one first trench has a depth to width ratio lying between 1:1 and 2:1”, as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
May 19, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights