Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/817,388

EMBEDDED MOLDING FAN-OUT (EMFO) PACKAGING AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 12, 2020
Examiner
LEE, EUGENE
Art Unit
2815
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Chengdu Eswin Sip Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
728 granted / 891 resolved
+13.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
930
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 891 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazelpour US 2011/0204515 A1 in view of Stacey US 2012/0199967 A1. Fazelpour discloses (see, for example, FIG. 3A) a semiconductor package system 300 comprising a semiconductor substrate 105, and further discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0028]) the top semiconductor surface 107 comprising an active region having active circuitry 109(a) and 109(b). An encapsulation material 312 at least partially encapsulates the semiconductor substrate 105 and a portion of the active region, the encapsulation material 312 has a cavity extending through to an upper surface of the active region. The redistribution layer structure 327 is positioned over an upper surface of the encapsulation material 312, and includes a conformal layer 327 lining a bottom surface and sidewalls of the cavity and extending partially above the upper surface of the encapsulation material 312. A dielectric material 319 is disposed above the conformal layer 327 and above portions of the upper surface of the encapsulation material 312 without the conformal layer 327, the dielectric layer 319 filling the cavity, wherein at least a portion of the RDL 327 is in electrical contact with the active region of the semiconductor device through the conformal layer 327. Fazelpour does not specifically disclose the conformal layer being a conformal metal layer. However, Stacey discloses (see, for example, Figure 1, and paragraph [0038]) a semiconductor package system comprising a conformal metal layer 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a conformal layer being a conformal metal layer in order to provide high electrical conductivity between the semiconductor substrate and other regions of a semiconductor package system. Regarding claim 22, see, for example, FIG. 3A wherein Fazelpour discloses the dielectric material 319 including a single dielectric layer. Regarding claim 23, see, for example, FIG. 3A wherein Fazelpour discloses a solder ball 310(a). In Figure 1, Stacey discloses a conformal metal layer 4/8/7 that extends above the upper surface of an encapsulation material 3, portions of the conformal metal layer disposed within the dielectric material 5 and portions of the conformal metal layer extending, at least partially, above an upper surface of the dielectric material 5. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have portions of the conformal metal layer disposed within the dielectric material and portions of the conformal metal layer extending, at least partially, above an upper surface of the dielectric material in order to have a contiguous material that avoids discontinuities and/or defects, and thereby reduce effects such as noise, high impedance, etc. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazelpour US 2011/0204515 A1 in view of Stacey US 2012/0199967 A1 as applied to claims 1, 22, and 23 above, and further in view of Scanlan et al. US 2016/0086825 A1. Fazelpour in view of Stacey does not disclose an insulating layer encapsulating the semiconductor substrate and at least a portion of the encapsulation material, the insulating layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the encapsulation material and on a bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the bottom surface of the encapsulation material is coplanar with the bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate. However, Scanlan discloses (see, for example, FIG. 19) a semiconductor package system 300 comprising and encapsulation material 366, and an insulating layer 384. In paragraph [0135], Scanlan discloses the insulating layer includes a dielectric film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulating layer encapsulating the semiconductor substrate and at least a portion of the encapsulation material, the insulating layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the encapsulation material and on a bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the bottom surface of the encapsulation material is coplanar with the bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate in order to protect the bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM. 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 BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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. Eugene Lee January 27, 2026 /EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2020
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2022
Response Filed
Apr 29, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 06, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 08, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 08, 2023
Response Filed
Jul 05, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 11, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 26, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593460
MULTI-TIER DEEP TRENCH CAPACITOR AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588397
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, DISPLAY DEVICE, WEARABLE DEVICE, AND DISPLAY METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588194
METHOD FOR PHYSICALLY UNCLONABLE FUNCTION THROUGH GATE HEIGHT TUNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588569
Buried Seam with Kirigami Pattern for 3D Micro LED Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581973
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 891 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month