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 .
Examiner notes that claims 16-20 were cancelled and claims 21-25 were added in the response filed 8/5/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I (claims 1-15 and 21-25) in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, "interposer." should be amended to read -interposer, -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the seed layer" in line 2 and “the metal layer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 currently depends from claim 21. However, if claim 24 were to change its dependency to claim 23, the antecedent basis issue would be obviated.
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.
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.
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2023/0101041 and Song hereinafter) in view of Huang et al (TW 200409320 and Huang hereinafter; a machine translation is used as an English language equivalent).
As to claims 21 and 25: Song discloses [claim 21] a package structure (Figs. 7A and 7B; [0070]), comprising: an interposer (300; [0071]); a first die (120; [0072]) and a second die (130; [0072]) mounted on the interposer (300), the first die (120) being disposed alongside the second die (130); a third die (110; [0072]) disposed over the first die (120) and the second die (130); and a high bandwidth memory (HBM) stack (400; [0081]-[0082]) mounted on the interposer (300), wherein the third die (110) comprises a rectangular surface (top surface shown in Fig. 7A) away from the first die (120) and the second die (130).
Song fails to expressly disclose [claim 21] wherein the third die comprises metal pads disposed at corners of the third die, wherein top surfaces of the metal pads are coplanar with the rectangular surface; [claim 25] wherein each of the metal pads comprises a rectangular shape, a triangular shape, a circular shape, or a polygonal shape.
Song discloses a package with stacked semiconductors.
Huang discloses in Figs. 3 and 4F a semiconductor die with pads 140/150 (pages 4 and 5) on a top surface thereof that are coplanar with the die (coplanar with top surface of 115). In Fig. 4F, the pads are shown to have a rectangular shape.
Applying the pad structure of Huang to the package of Song, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to provide the third die 110 of Song with pads that comprise metal and will be coplanar with a top surface of 110 and the metal pads can be in a rectangular shape in order to allow for further dies to be formed thereon or wire bonds to be attached thereto where the metal pads provide the desirable result of preventing peeling and pitting caused by stress (page 6).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Huang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2023/0230960 and Kim hereinafter).
As to claims 23 and 24: Although the structure disclosed by Song in view of Huang shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 12 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
[claim 23] wherein each of the metal pads comprises a seed layer and a metal layer disposed on the seed layer; [claim 24] wherein the seed layer comprises titanium (Ti),wherein the metal layer comprises aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), or aluminum-copper (AlCu).
Song discloses that the metal pad 140/150 can comprise a wire bond pad (pages 4 and 5).
Kim discloses in [0019], [0021], and [0033] that wire bond pads can comprise a seed layer of titanium and a metal layer of copper on the seed layer
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case in the instant case choosing the wire pad to comprise a titanium seed layer and copper metal layer from the list of Kim; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a structure that allows for an electrical connection to the chip/die, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
Claims 1-15 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1: the closest prior art, Song, discloses a semiconductor package (Figs. 7A and 7B; [0070]), comprising: an interposer (300; [0071]); and a component (comprising 120 and 110; [0072]) mounted on the interposer (300) and comprising: a first die (120; [0072]); and a second die (110; [0072]) disposed over the first die (120) and comprising a surface (top surface shown in Fig. 7A) away from the first die (120). Song fails to expressly disclose wherein the second die comprises a metal pad, wherein a top surface of the metal pad is coplanar with the surface. Huang discloses in Figs. 3 and 4F a semiconductor die with pads 140/150 (pages 4 and 5) on a top surface thereof that are coplanar with the die (coplanar with top surface of 115). Song in view of Huang fail to expressly disclose wherein the metal pad is electrically floating.
As to claim 9: the closest prior art, Song, discloses a package structure (Figs. 7A and 7B; [0070]), comprising: an interposer (300; [0071]); and a component (comprising 120, 130, and 110; [0072]) mounted on the interposer (300) and comprising: a first die (120; [0072]) and a second die (130; [0072]) disposed alongside the first die (120), a third die (110; [0072]) disposed over the first die (120) and the second die (130), wherein the third die (110) comprises a rectangular surface (top surface shown in Fig. 7A) away from the first die (120) and the second die (130). Song fails to expressly disclose wherein the third die comprises four (4) metal pads disposed at four (4) corners of the third die, wherein top surfaces of the four (4) metal pads are coplanar with the rectangular surface. Huang discloses in Figs. 3 and 4F a semiconductor die with pads 140/150 (pages 4 and 5) on a top surface thereof that are coplanar with the die (coplanar with top surface of 115). Song in view of Huang fail to expressly disclose wherein the four (4) metal pads are electrically floating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, EST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights