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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/25/25 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a central portion of the first sidewall” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 1 and 5(a) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate with each other” (emphasis added). This is incorrect and should instead be “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate from each other”.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate with each other” (emphasis added). This is incorrect and should instead be “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate from each other”.
Claim 8 further recites “two side”. This is incorrect and should instead be “two sides”.
Claim 10 recites “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate with each other” (emphasis added). This is incorrect and should instead be “a plurality of semiconductor dies horizontally separate from each other”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of edge pads is located within a central portion of the first sidewall of the semiconductor die” (emphasis added). It is unclear from the drawing and associated description what are the limits of what Applicants consider “a central portion of the first sidewall”. The limitation is mentioned in [0017] and [0020] of the PGPub of this application without referring to anything in any of the drawings. The edge pads (items 2022 and 112 on figs. 3a-1&4a-1, or items 601, 701 and 801 on respective figs. 6a-b,7a, 8a) are distributed all over the first sidewall and do not appear to be located within anything defined as a central portion.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein an area of the bottom surface or the top surface is larger than that of any sidewall” (emphasis added). It is unclear what Applicants meant by “any sidewall”. Is it any sidewall among the first, second, third and fourth sidewalls priorly recited or is it any sidewall in the first memory stack or IC structure? Clarification is needed.
Claims 5 and 6 each recites the limitation "the thermal conductivity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (US 2018/0114773).
a. Re claim 1 and in view of the 112 2nd rejection above, Chiu et al. disclose a IC structure comprising: a first memory stack 1300 (see figs. 13A-B and [0046]; see remaining of disclosure for more details) comprising: a plurality of semiconductor dies (one semiconductor die is a composite die made of the two upper dies 1311, and another semiconductor die is a composite die made of the two upper dies 1331, both composite being a plurality of semiconductor dies) horizontally separate from each other, wherein each semiconductor die comprises a top surface (explicit on figs. 1A-B), a bottom surface opposite to the top surface (explicit on figs. 1A-B), and four sidewalls (explicit on figs. 1A-B) with a first sidewall (sidewall facing structures 1326&1346), a second sidewall (opposite the first sidewall), a third sidewall (in the plane of the figures) and a fourth sidewall (opposite the third sidewall), and a plurality of edge pads (vertical surfaces of interconnects 1316 flushed with, and defining in part, the first sidewall for the two upper dies 1311, or vertical surfaces of interconnects 1336 flushed with, and defining in part, the first sidewall for the two upper dies 1331) located on the first sidewall and arranged in multiple rows (two rows in this case as can be deducted from figs. 13A-B) or two dimensions (explicit on figs. 13A-B); wherein an area of the bottom surface or the top surface is larger than that of any sidewall among the first, second, third and fourth sidewalls (this is explicit on fig. 13A since each of the lateral dimensions of the top surface is larger than the thickness of any two upper dies in stack 1310 or stack 1330); wherein the plurality of edge pads is located (at least in part) within a central portion CP (see annotated fig. 13A below) of the first sidewall of the semiconductor die.
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. Re claim 11, there is no TSV in each semiconductor die (explicit on fig. 13B, noting that the interconnection between the vertically stacked dies are made through edge pads as defined in claim 1 rejection above and redistribution layers 1326 and/or 1336).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 2003/0146012), Colgan et al. (US 2012/0233510, BAE et al. (US 2023/0042063) and Jung et al. (US 2020/0395346) disclose IC structures similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899