DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 7/14/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 15, 17-18, 21-22 and 29 are pending. Claims 6, 12-14, 16, 19-20 and 23-28 have been canceled. Claim 29 is are new. Claims 1, 15 and 18 have been amended.
Specification
The amendment filed 2/7/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
On the other hand, a bond wire is bonded to a surface by wire bonding techniques. For example, wire bonding is a thermosonic bonding that involves heat, pressure, and ultrasonic energy to create a weld between two surfaces. The wire bonding process starts with creating a free air ball formed at a tip of a capillary, which is pressed on to a surface to create a bond.
Applicant’s disclosure have not described “bond wire” or “wire bond” as having such narrowed meaning as disclosed originally. Nor did the original disclosure provide support for a “trace” not being a specific “bond wire” as described in the new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-5, 7-11, 15, 17-18, and 21-22 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.
Claims 1 and 15 reciting “interconnecting trace is different from a bond wire” recite new matter to the extent that the 2/7/2024 specification amendment is attempting to newly define the claimed “bond wire”. More specifically, Applicant’s original disclosure fails to provide support for the “interconnecting trace” to be different from a bond wire that “is bonded to a surface by wire bonding techniques”, wherein the wire bonding technique “is a thermosonic bonding that involves heat, pressure, and ultrasonic energy to create a weld between two surfaces”, and “the wire bonding process starts with creating a free air ball formed at a tip of a capillary, which is pressed on to a surface to create a bond.” Therefore, the claim limitations in light of new matter contained in the amended specification fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-5, 7-11, 15, 17-18, 21-22 and 29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 reciting “interconnecting trace is different from a bond wire” render the claims indefinite.
A “wire” is understood to mean “a thin piece of metal” and “bond” is understood to mean “a connection to an object”. Therefore, a “bond wire” has an ordinary meaning in the art referring to a thin piece of metal that is connected to an object.
No specific structural details of the interconnecting trace has been claimed that would render it unequivocally and structurally distinguishable from a “bond wire”.
Applicant’s original specification cursory recites “a trace is different from a wire bond” in a conclusory manner (see original ¶ 0020). Such disclosure does not clearly define a “interconnecting trace” to be structurally distinguishable over a “bond wire.
The newly amended specification filed on 2/7/2024 containing new matter, apparently attempting to associate “bond wire” with particular processing techniques. The pending claims are directed to the product instead of its manufacture process. Even if these method details were to be incorporated into the claims, it remains unclear how would the claimed structure of “interconnecting trace” distinguish over the structure of “a bond wire”.
Neither the specification nor the claims provide structural details on how the claimed “interconnecting trace” must differentiate from that of a “bond wire”. As such, it is unclear how would the “interconnecting trace” as claimed and described by Applicant’s disclosure structurally differentiate from a “bond wire”. And it remain unclear what is structurally required for the interconnecting trace to be “different from a bond wire”.
Claim 1 reciting “the plurality of leads is exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “exposed on” a surface. As disclosed, the leads are not provided “on” the side surface or the bottom surface. Rather, the leads are provide in the mold compound with a lead side surface and a lead bottom surface that are exposed to an outside of the mold compound. However, it is unclear what is required for the leads to be “exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package”.
Claim 15 reciting “the signal lead and the power lead are exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” renders the claim indefinite for similarly reason as claim 1 detailed above.
Claim 29 reciting “the plurality of leads is exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” renders the claim indefinite for similarly reason as claim 1 detailed above.
Claim 1 reciting “the side surface along a periphery of the semiconductor package and a plane along the side surface coplanar with a surface of the mold compound” renders the claim indefinite. The claim language is fragmented rendering unclear what the intended meaning is. More specifically, it is unclear what is coplanar with a surface of the mold compound. The language contains many possible interpretation without clear indication which is intended. Examples of possible intended claim meaning include
the side surface is along a periphery of the semiconductor package, a plane is along the side surface, and the side surface is coplanar with a surface of the mold compound
the side surface is along a periphery of the semiconductor package, a plane is along the side surface, and the plane is coplanar with a surface of the mold compound
the side surface is along a periphery of the semiconductor package, a plane is along the side surface, and both the side surface and the plane are coplanar with a surface of the mold compound
Claim 29 reciting “a portion of each of the at least two kinks parallel to each other” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what does “parallel to each other” is intended to modify. E.g. are the “portion of each of the at least two kinks” parallel to each other or are the at least two kinks parallel to each other. Furthermore, the claim does not further limit structural aspect of “a portion of each of the at least two kinks parallel to each other”. It is unclear what about the “portion of each of the at least two kinks parallel to each other” is significant.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-10, 15, 17-18, 21-22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. US 2020/0161206 A1 (Hu).
PNG
media_image1.png
1369
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Hu discloses (e.g. FIGs. 9 and 12, see annotated above) a semiconductor package comprising:
a die 11 electrically coupled to a plurality of leads 182,183 (coupled through 121,122,14,125,151,152,153), wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 includes power leads and signal leads (no specific “power” or “signal” leads have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over, e.g. Hu’s leads 182,183 that can be configured to provide electrical power and signal to the die 11 and thus can function as “power leads” and “signal leads”);
an “interconnecting trace” (portion of 122 adjacent to the via 125, see annotated in FIG. 9 above) electrically coupled between a bump (no specific “bump” claimed that would distinguish over metal portion protruding above die 11 annotated in FIG. 9 above) attached to a bond pad of the die 11 and a via-pad (portion of 122 above via 125 as annotated in FIG. 9 above);
a via 125 coupled to the via-pad (see FIG. 9 above), and the via pad coupled to one of the signal leads 182; and
a “bypass trace” (another portion of 122 as annotated in FIG. 9 above) including a proximal end (end closest to “interconnecting trace”) connected to the interconnecting trace and a distal end (end away from “interconnecting trace”) floating inside a mold compound 123 of the semiconductor package, wherein the bypass trace is non-linear when viewed from a top view of the semiconductor package (see FIG. 12, showing the portion of 122 corresponding to “bypass trace” being bent, wherein the bent is considered a part of the “bypass trace”), and wherein the “interconnecting trace” is “different from a bond wire” (portion of 122 as annotated in FIG. 9 above are part of the circuit layer, and is “different from a bond wire”, as best understood), and wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 is “exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” (as best understood, see FIG. 9, the leads 182,183 are “exposed on” the side surface and bottom surface as a result of etching the dielectric layer 124 to form the recessed portions 184,185, ¶ 60), “the side surface along a periphery of the semiconductor package (the outer side surface of leads exposed by etching 124 is “along” the periphery of the semiconductor package) and a plane along the side surface (see FIG. 9 annotated above showing a plane as indicated by the dashed line that is parallel to the side surface of the leads; the parallel plane is thus “along” the side surface) coplanar with a surface of the mold compound 123” (as best understood, the “plane” as annotated in FIG. 9 above is coplanar with a surface of the mold compound).
In re claim 2, Hu discloses (see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the distal end of the bypass trace is not directly connected to any electrical structure of the semiconductor package (the “distal end” as annotated in FIG. 9 above, is covered by the dielectric 123).
In re claim 3, Hu discloses (see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the distal end is adjacent to an edge of the semiconductor package compared to the proximal end. No specific distance is claimed for “adjacent” to distinguish over the “distal end” as annotated in FIG. 9 of Hu above, that is considered to be adjacent to an edge of the semiconductor package as compared to the “proximal end” relative to a different edge.
In re claim 4, Hu discloses (see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the distal end of the floating inside the mold compound 123 includes the distal end contacting only the mold compound 123 (the “distal end” as annotated in FIG. 9 above, contact only 123).
In re claim 5, Hu discloses (e.g. see FIGs. 9 & 12 annotated above) wherein the bypass trace (portion of 122 including bent portion) includes one or more kinks or chamfers (see FIG. 12, showing 122 being bent, wherein the bent is considered a part of the “bypass trace” with kinks).
In re claim 7, Hu discloses the claimed “bypass trace” having a dimension that is considered to have an “impact” on an electrical performance as a function of frequency of the semiconductor package. More specifically, dimension of the “bypass trace” as interpreted above has an impact on an electrical performance, e.g. degree electrical resistivity or other electrical coupling effects. No specific dimension or “function of frequency” has otherwise been claimed that would render the device claimed structurally distinguishable over the prior art.
Furthermore, the frequency of the semiconductor package pertains to a functional limitation of the device claimed. No specific frequency value is claimed that would distinguish over the prior art device operating under any frequency. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In re claim 8, Hu discloses (e.g. FIG. 9) wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 are part of a routable leadframe. No specific “routable leadframe” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over Hu’s device package containing the claimed interconnections.
In re claim 9, Hu discloses (see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the interconnecting trace and the bypass trace (both parts of 122) are coplanar from at least one view of the semiconductor package (coplanar in view of FIG. 9).
In re claim 10, Hu discloses (e.g. FIG. 9 as annotated above) further comprising a power trace (one of 122) electrically connecting between a power bond pad of the die 11 to a power lead (one of 182) of the plurality of leads, wherein a width of the power trace (a larger one of 122 as shown in FIG. 12) is more than a width of the interconnecting trace (a smaller one of 122 in FIG. 12) from a top view of the semiconductor package. For example, the trace 122 at the top of FIG. 12 has a larger spanning width in the lateral direction than the a trace 122 at the bottom of FIG. 12. See FIG. 12 annotated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
729
847
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, no specific “power trace” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over one of the trace 122 having larger spanning width. Similarly, no specific “power lead” has been claimed that would structurally over one of 182 that is coupled to the trace 122 with larger spanning width. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image3.png
1369
974
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 15, as best understood, Hu discloses (FIGs. 9 and 12) a semiconductor package comprising:
a die 11 electrically coupled to a plurality of leads 182,183, wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 includes a power lead and a signal lead (no specific “power” or “signal” leads have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over, e.g. Hu’s leads 182,183 that can be configured to provide electrical power and signal to the die 11 and thus can function as “power leads” and “signal leads”);
a signal interconnecting trace (one of 122) electrically coupled between a signal bump (no specific “signal bump” claimed that would distinguish over metal portion protruding above die 11 as annotated in FIG. 9 above that routes signal) connected to a signal bond pad of the die 11, and a signal via pad (no specific “signal via pad” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over a portion of 122 above via 125 that routes signal, see annotated in FIG. 9 above);
a power interconnecting trace (another one of 122, see FIG. 12) electrically coupled between a power bump (no specific “power bump” claimed that would distinguish over metal portion protruding above die 11 as annotated in FIG. 9 above that routes power) connected to a power bond pad of the die 11 and a power via pad (no specific “power via pad” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over a portion of circuit layer 122 above the via 125 that routes power, see annotated FIG. 9 above); and
a signal via 125 between the signal via pad (portion of 122 above 125) and the signal lead 182, and a power via 125 (another one of 125) between the power via pad (portion of another 122 above 125) and the power lead 182 (another one of 182);
a “bypass trace” (another portion of 122 as annotated in FIG. 9 above) including a proximal end (end closest to signal interconnecting trace) connected to the signal interconnecting trace and a distal end (end away from the signal interconnecting trace) floating inside a mold compound 123 of the semiconductor package, wherein the bypass trace is non-linear from a top view of the semiconductor package (see FIG. 12, showing the portion of 122 corresponding to “bypass trace” being bent, wherein the bent is considered a part of the “bypass trace”), and wherein the signal interconnecting trace is “different from a bond wire” (portion of 122 as annotated in FIG. 9 above are part of the circuit layer, and is “different from a bond wire”, as best understood), and wherein the signal lead and the power leads 182,183 are “exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” (as best understood, see FIG. 9, the leads 182,183 are “exposed on” the side surface and bottom surface as a result of etching the dielectric layer 124 to form the recessed portions 184,185, ¶ 60).
In re claim 17, Hu discloses the claimed “signal interconnecting trace” 122 having a length that is considered to have an “impact” on an electrical performance as a function of frequency of the semiconductor package. More specifically, length of the “signal interconnecting trace” as interpreted above has an impact on an electrical performance, e.g. degree electrical resistivity or other electrical coupling effects. No specific length or “function of frequency” has otherwise been claimed that would render the device claimed structurally distinguishable over the prior art.
Furthermore, the frequency of the semiconductor package pertains to a functional limitation of the device claimed. No specific frequency value is claimed that would distinguish over the prior art device operating under any frequency. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In re claim 18, as best understood, Hu discloses (e.g. see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the die 11 is attached to a die attach pad 181, and the die attach pad 181 and the plurality of leads 182,183 are part of a routable leadframe. No specific “routable leadframe” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over Hu’s device package containing the claimed interconnections.
In re claim 21, Hu discloses (see FIG. 12) wherein the signal interconnecting trace 122 includes one or more kinks or chamfers (see FIG. 12, showing plural traces 122 being bent, wherein the bent correspond to a kink).
In re claim 22, Hu discloses (see FIG. 9 annotated above) wherein the power via pad and the signal via pad (corresponding to portions of 122 above via 125) are coplanar from a side view being perpendicular to the top view (the top surface being coplanar).
PNG
media_image4.png
693
1201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
690
917
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re claim 29, as best understood, Hu discloses (FIGs. 9 and 12) a semiconductor package comprising:
a die 11 electrically coupled to a plurality of leads 182,183, wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 includes a power lead and a signal lead (no specific “power” or “signal” leads have been claimed that would structurally distinguish over, e.g. Hu’s leads 182,183 that can be configured to provide electrical power and signal to the die 11 and thus can function as “power leads” and “signal leads”);
an “interconnecting trace” (portion of 122 adjacent to the via 125, see annotated in FIG. 9 above) electrically coupled between a bump (no specific “bump” claimed that would distinguish over metal portion protruding above die 11 annotated in FIG. 9 above) attached to a bond pad of the die 11 and a via-pad (portion of 122 above via 125 as annotated in FIG. 9 above);
a via 125 coupled to the via-pad (see FIG. 9 above), and the via pad coupled to one of the signal leads 182; and
a “bypass trace” (another portion of 122 as annotated in FIG. 9 above) including a proximal end (end closest to “interconnecting trace”) connected to the interconnecting trace and a distal end (end away from “interconnecting trace”) floating inside a mold compound 123+124 (corresponding to combined structure of 123 and 124) of the semiconductor package,
wherein the bypass trace includes at least two kinks when viewed from a top view of the semiconductor package (see FIG. 12 annotated above, showing the portion of 122 corresponding to “bypass trace” having two kinks), “a portion of each of the at least two kinks parallel to each other” (as best understood, see FIG. 12 annotated above, the portions of the two kinks that are connected are part of the linear segment and are therefore parallel to each other) and wherein the plurality of leads 182,183 is “exposed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor package” (as best understood, see FIG. 9, the leads 182,183 are “exposed on” the side surface and bottom surface as a result of etching the dielectric layer 124 to form the recessed portions 184,185, ¶ 60), wherein a plane along the bottom surface (see FIG. 9 annotated above showing a plane as indicated by the dashed line along the bottom surface of the semiconductor package) is coplanar with a surface of the mold compound 123+124 (the “plane” is parallel with the bottom surface of the mold compound 123+124).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loraine et al. US 2006/0214271 A1 (Loraine).
In re claim 11, Hu discloses (FIG. 9 and 12) the semiconductor package having a leadframe (¶ 25). Hu does not explicitly disclose the bypass trace having a length between 0.75mm and 1.5mm with a tunable range between 26GHz and 34GHz.
Loraine discloses (FIGs. 2A & 6) a leadframe 100 comprising an antenna 130 coupled to a lead, wherein a length of the antenna 130 is approximately 3.8 mm - 18 mm for a frequency of 20 GHz to 40 GHz. Loraine discloses the antenna length is set to tune the desired frequency (¶ 57). Loraine further discloses an effective length of the trace 130 can be set by attaching a terminating wire bond to any particular location along 130 to tune the frequency (¶ 58,78,83). Therefore, Loraine teaches the length of the antenna 130 can be set to a value x for a frequency of 26-34GHz with the range of 20-40 GHz, wherein x is 3.8-18 mm.
PNG
media_image6.png
637
1429
media_image6.png
Greyscale
No specific “bypass trace” has been claimed that would distinguish over the last 0.75-1.5mm of Loraine’s antenna 130, while the remainder may be part of the “interconnecting trace”. For example, when the antenna 130 has a length of 3.8 mm, the last 1 mm of the 3.8 mm long antenna 130 would correspond to the claimed “bypass trace”. Similarly, when the antenna 130 has a length of x for a frequency of 26-34GHz, the last 0.75-1.5 mm segment of 130 teaches the claimed “bypass trace” with a tunable range between 26GHz and 34GHz.
Furthermore, Loraine recognizes that the length of the trace 130 impacts the frequency of the device package (¶ 57). Loraine further recognizes there is a need to adjust the length of trace 130 to achieve the desired frequency. The length of the trace 130 is therefore a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s device package to include an antenna trace connected to the interconnecting trace 122 to enable a RF function, and to set the length of the antenna trace to 0.75mm to 1.5mm to obtained desired frequency as taught by Loraine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the length of the trace 130 as Loraine has identified the length as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at length of the trace between 0.75 mm and 1.5 mm, in order to achieve the desired frequency as taught by Loraine. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding specification objections, Applicant argues the original specification differentiates a trace and a bond wire, and the amended specification further defines the differences by the way they are formed (Remark, pages 6-7).
This is not persuasive. Although the original specification states the trace to be “different from a wire bond”, the particular aspect in which they are different is not specified. The amended specification attempted to define a bond wire, and thus set forth a new boundary for what a trace could be since it is supposed to be different from a bond wire. Such new metes and bounds is not fully supported by the original disclosure. The details of a bond wire as newly described is not implicit or inherent based on Applicant’s original disclosure. It is also not inherent that a “trace” must differs from the “wire bonding techniques” as newly disclosed.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(a), Applicant argues amended claim limitations is supported by para [0020] of the specification (Remark, page 7).
This is not persuasive. Although the claim language are original presented, the amendments to the specification affects the interpretation of the claimed subject matter. Thus, the claims are subject to new matter rejection in view of the amended specification. MPEP 2163.06 states [w]hen the claims have not been amended, per se, but the specification has been amended to add new matter, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, should be made whenever any of the claim limitations are affected by the added material.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), Applicant argues the specification distinguishes a trace from a bond wire (Remark, pages 7-8).
This is not persuasive. Applicant’s original specification merely describes “a trace is different from a wire bond” in a conclusory manner (see original ¶ 0020). Such disclosure does not clearly define a “interconnecting trace” to be structurally distinguishable over a “bond wire.
The newly amended specification filed on 2/7/2024 containing new matter, apparently attempting to associate “bond wire” with particular processing techniques. The pending claims are directed to the product instead of its manufacture process. Even if these method details were to be incorporated into the claims, it remains unclear how would the claimed structure of “interconnecting trace” distinguish over the structure of “a bond wire”.
Neither the specification nor the claims provide structural details on how the claimed “interconnecting trace” must differentiate from that of a “bond wire”. As such, it is unclear how would the “interconnecting trace” as claimed and described by Applicant’s disclosure structurally differentiate from a “bond wire”. And it remain unclear what is structurally required for the interconnecting trace to be “different from a bond wire”.
Regarding claims rejected over Hu and Loraine, Applicant argues the prior art fail to teach new limitation (Remark, pages 8-9).
This is not persuasive. The claims are rejected over Hu and Loraine as detailed above.
Applicant's arguments are amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights