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 .
Remarks
The amendment filed on December 18th, 2025 has been acknowledged. By this amendment, claims 1, 12, and 22 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-25 are pending in the present application in which claims 12-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
New Grounds of Rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0381383), newly cited.
In re claim 1, Hsu discloses an electronic package, comprising: a package substrate 115 (see paragraph [0028] and fig. 3A); a die 200 coupled to the package substrate 115 (see paragraph [0029] and fig. 3A); a stiffener (outermost 142,146,148) around the die 200 and over the package substrate 115 (see paragraphs [0034], [0035] and fig. 3A, note that elements 142,146,148 provide mechanical integrity to the package substrate due to bending and thermal cycles (see paragraph [0030] and thus constitutes the stiffener); an electrically non-conductive underfill 210 around first level interconnects (FLIs) 212 between the package substrate 115 and the die 200 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 3A), an electrically conductive layer (innermost 142,146,148) around the non-conductive underfill 210, wherein the non-conductive underfill 210 is laterally between the die 200 and the electrically conductive layer (142,146,148) such that the electrically conductive layer (142,146,148) does not contact the die 200 (see paragraphs [0033], [0034], [0035] and fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Hsu discloses wherein the electronic package further comprising: a pad 142 on the package substrate 115, and wherein the electrically conductive layer (146,148) contacts the pad 142 (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 3A).
In re claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Hsu discloses wherein the electrically conductive layer (146,148) is a conductive epoxy (see paragraph [0034]).
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GOH et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0411448), of record.
In re claim 22, GOH discloses an electronic system, comprising: a board 102 (see paragraph [0020] and fig. 1); a package substrate 105 coupled to the board 102; a die 110 coupled to the package substrate 105 (see paragraph [0021] and fig. 1); an underfill 125 around first level interconnects (FLIs) 123 between the die 110 and the package substrate 105 (see paragraph [0021] and fig. 1); and an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield 120 over the package substrate 102 and around the underfill 125 (see paragraphs [0021], [0026] and fig. 1, note that element 120 is conductively coupled to a ground source of the substrate 102 and is thus grounded to avoid acting as an antenna to reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI) or radio frequency interference (RFI) risks and thus constitutes the electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield), wherein the underfill 125 is laterally intervening between the die 110 and the EMI shield 120 such that the EMI shield 120 does not contact the die 110 (see paragraphs [0021], [0022] and fig. 1, note that the underfill 125 extends along sidewalls of the die 110 and thus laterally intervening between the die 110 and the EMI shield 120).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 23, as applied to claim 22 above, GOH discloses wherein the EMI shield 120 includes a conductive epoxy or a conductive ink (see paragraph [0028] and fig. 1).
In re claim 24, as applied to claim 22 above, GOH discloses wherein the EMI shield 120 is configured to be grounded (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0381383), newly cited, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of GOH et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0411448), of record.
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 3 above, Hsu is silent to wherein the pad is configured to be grounded.
However, GOH discloses in a same field of endeavor, an electronic package, including, inter-alia, where the pad 232 is configured to be grounded (see paragraph [0032] and figs. 2A-B).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by GOH into the electronic package of Hsu in order to enable wherein the pad is configured to be grounded in Hsu to be formed in order to reduce the electromagnetic interference (EMI) or radio frequency interference (RFI) risks and significantly mitigate electrostatic discharge (ESD) noise and signal crosstalk (see paragraph [0026] of GOH).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0381383), newly cited.
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Hsu is silent to wherein a top surface of the electrically conductive layer is curved.
However, it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape of the electrically conductive layer was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0381383), newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dias et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0323128), newly cited.
In re claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Hsu is silent to wherein the electrically conductive layer is a conductive ink.
However, Dias discloses in a same field of endeavor, an electronic package, including, inter-alia, an electronic package comprising a package substrate, an electrically conductive layer 114 around a non-conductive underfill 420, wherein the electrically conductive layer 114 is a conductive ink (see paragraphs [0032], [0033] and fig. 1E).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Dias into the electronic package of Hsu in order to enable wherein the electrically conductive layer is a conductive ink in Hsu to be formed in order to provide electromagnetic shielding to the electronic package (see paragraph [0001] of Dias). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0381383), newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamgaing et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0288371), of record.
In re claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Hsu is silent to wherein the package substrate comprises a core with a first four layers over the core and a second four layers under the core.
However, Kamgaing discloses in a same field of endeavor, an electronic package, including, inter-alia, wherein the package substrate comprises a core with a first four layers over the core and a second four layers under the core (ultra-thin multilayer organic package substrate) (see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kamgaing into the electronic package of Hsu in order to enable wherein the package substrate comprises a core with a first four layers over the core and a second four layers under the core in Hsu to be formed in order to obtain a desired orientation of an antenna unit for transmitting and receiving communications at a frequency of 4 GHz or higher (see Abstract of Kamgaing).
In re claim 9, as applied to claim 8 above, Hsu in combination with Kamgaing discloses wherein a topmost layer of the first four layers is a signal routing layer, and wherein a layer directly under the topmost layer is a ground layer (see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1 of Kamgaing).
In re claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Hsu in combination with Kamgaing discloses wherein the signal routing layer is a microstrip (see paragraph [0018] and fig. 1 of Kamgaing).
In re claim 11, as applied to claim 10 above, Hsu in combination with Kamgaing discloses wherein the electrically conductive layer electrically shields the microstrip (see paragraph [0028] and fig. 4c of Park and paragraph [[0018] and fig. 1 of Kamgaing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 25 are 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.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, with respect to claim 22, GOH specifically an underfill 125 around first level interconnects (FLIs) 123 between the die 110 and the package substrate 105 (see paragraph [0021] and fig. 1); and an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield 120 over the package substrate 102 and around the underfill 125 (see paragraphs [0021], [0026] and fig. 1, note that element 120 is conductively coupled to a ground source of the substrate 102 and is thus grounded to avoid acting as an antenna to reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI) or radio frequency interference (RFI) risks and thus constitutes the electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield), wherein the underfill 125 is laterally intervening between the die 110 and the EMI shield 120 such that the EMI shield 120 does not contact the die 110 (see paragraphs [0021], [0022] and fig. 1, note that the underfill 125 extends along sidewalls of the die 110 and thus laterally intervening between the die 110 and the EMI shield 120).
For this reason, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is proper.
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 KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892