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 of Invention I in the reply filed on April 29, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 2-5 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.
In claim 2, it is unclear how the plurality of first alignment marks and the plurality of second alignment marks correspond to the first component layout region, second component layout region and the overlapping stitching region. Claim 2 recites that both the plurality of first alignment marks and the plurality of the second alignment marks are not located in the overlapping stitching area. However, it appears that the specification describes that at least one of these plurality of alignment marks is in the overlapping stitching area (e.g., see Figures 3-5 which depict A21 in the overlapping stitching area). However, without clarity as to how to interpret the plurality of first alignment marks and the plurality of second alignment marks, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 3-5 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim and are therefore also rejected.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (US 2023/0268285 A1) in view of Fu et al (US 2025/0095987 A1) and Chen et al (TW I688988 B).
Hu discloses a semiconductor stitching structure, comprising:
a substrate 200 [0014], (Fig. 1);
a first mask pattern 300A defined on the substrate [0026] (Fig.3), and the first mask pattern comprises a first component layout region 110A and a first stitching region (the portion of 110A that forms region 110AB, [0015], Fig. 5));
a second mask pattern 300B defined on the substrate, and the second mask pattern comprises a second component layout region 110B and a second stitching region (the portion of 110BA that forms region 110AB, [0029], Fig. 8);
an overlapping stitching region 110AB [0015], wherein the overlapping stitching region is an overlapping part of the first stitching region of the first mask pattern and the second stitching region of the second mask pattern [0015];
a plurality of bridging wires 810 located on the substrate and in the overlapping stitching region (formed first by 510 (Fig. 5, [0028]), and then bridging 810 (Fig.8, [0031])); and
a plurality of alignment marks 800 AB (circles in Fig. 8, [0031]) on the substrate.
Hu fails to disclose that the alignment marks are located in the first component layout region 110A. Rather, Hu discloses that the alignment marks are located in the overlapping stitching region.
Fu teaches that alignment marks may be located in a component layout region. More specifically, Fu teaches that alignment mark 213 of overlapping stitching region 10C may extend into a first component layout region 10A and a second component layout region 10B [0086], Fig. 17A. Fu teaches that this arrangement increased process flexibility (last sentence of [0086]).
Chen teaches that rather alignment marks K1, K2 may be within a component layout area AA and adjacent to a boundary of a first component layout area and second component layout area (see abstract, Fig. 1G). The boundary corresponds to the stitching region, of unknown width.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include alignment marks within the first layout component region as taught by Fu or within a component layout area as taught by Chen as cited in the structure of Hu because Fu teaches that to do so increases process flexibility and Chen teaches that is a known, useful structure for alignment marks.
As to claim 2, as broadly interpreted, the portions of the alignments marks within the component layout region as taught by Fu are not in the overlapping stitching region. Alignment marks adjacent to a layout component region, as in the structure of Hu as modified by Chen, are not in the overlapping stitching region.
As to claim 3, Hu discloses that the alignment marks may overlap each other (Fig. 29A-29B, [0056]-[0057]).
As to claim 4, as broadly interpreted, the portions of the alignment marks in the structure of Hu modified by Fu are within the component layout region are beside the overlapping stitching region. The alignment marks are beside the overlapping stitching region in the structure of Hu as modified by Chen.
As to claim 5, in another embodiment Fu teaches that the alignment marks 213 extend into one component layout region 10A, but not in the second component layout region 10B. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alignment marks in one region but not the second region as cited because Fu teaches it is a useful embodiment, and such is expected to also offer process flexibility.
As to claim 6, Hu fails to disclose that the ratio of the area of the first stitching region to the area of the second stitching region is less than 1/10, as in the context of claim 6. However, this is a matter of obvious design choice in order to process flexibility. MPEP 2144.04 IV.A. As presently claimed, changing the ratio does not change how the structure operates. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the areas as cited in the modified method of Hu in order to provide stitching regions that provide flexibility to provide a desired final product semiconductor design.
As to claims 7-8, Fu discloses to includes alignment marks 212, 215 in the periphery as cited (Fig. 17, [0057]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include marks in the periphery as cited in the structure of Hu because Fu teaches it is a useful structure and is expected to improve alignment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu et al (US 2023/0112229 A1) is cited to show a plurality of alignment regions over a semiconductor substrate. Maejima et al (US 7,875,409 B2) is cited to show alignment marks 86 array grid 88 (col.4, lines 41-44, Fig. 8B), or alignment marks 96 located outside 97 of the array grid (col.4, lines 44-47, Fig. 9B). Hosler (WO 2025/212137 A2) is cited to show a stitched component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights