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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Jun. 17th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Jun. 17th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on Dec. 17th 2025. Claims 11-13 and 15-21 are examined in this office action. Claims 1 and 3-10 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-13, 15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 20130105943) in view of Kim et al. (US 20220336336).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches a substrate (fig. 2D, substrate 2a; para. 0023) comprising:
a passive device (second capacitor 23; para. 0026) embedded within a cavity (cavity 200; para. 0024) of a substrate core (core layer 20; para. 0023) of the substrate (2a); and
an additional element (first capacitor 21; para. 0024) bonded through a bonding layer (bonding layer 22; para. 0026) to the passive device (23) to form an passive device aggregation (21, 22, 23);
wherein the maximum thickness of the passive device aggregation (total thickness of 21, 22, 23) is substantially equal to a thickness of the substrate core (thickness of 20).
Lai fails to explicitly teach the additional element comprises a dummy substrate.
However, Kim teaches the additional element (Kim: fig. 3, inner substrate 410; para. 0034, similar to 21 of Lai) comprises a dummy substrate (Kim: 410 is dummy/non-functional here without redistribution wirings; para. 0034).
Kim and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dummy substrate as taught by Kim.
Doing so would realize a dummy substrate to replace a capacitor to achieve a simpler/cheaper setting for some function just need one capacity and provide the same height for the package having compact size fitting the same core and improved electrical characteristics (Kim: para. 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Lai in view of Kim teaches the semiconductor substrate of claim 11, wherein a width of the dummy substrate (Kim: fig. 3, width of 410) matches a width of the passive device (Kim: width of first passive device 430 and inner connection terminals 436; para. 0048, similar to 23 of Lai), and wherein the dummy substrate (Kim: 410) increases the maximum thickness of the passive device aggregation (Kim: increases the max thickness of 430 with 410) by a thickness of the dummy substrate (Kim: thickness of 410).
Regarding claim 13, Lai in view of Kim teaches the substrate of claim 11, wherein the dummy substrate (Kim: fig. 3, 410) is formed of dielectric or insulation material (Kim: core part 412 of 410 formed of a dielectric material; para. 0031).
Regarding claim 15, Lai in view of Kim further teaches the substrate of claim 11, wherein:
conductive contacts (Lai: fig. 2G, second electrode pads 230a, 230b; para. 0026) are disposed on an outward face (bottom surface) of the passive device (Lai: 23) opposite the addition element (Lai: 21).
Regarding claim 20, Lai teaches a device (fig. 2G) comprising:
a passive device (fig. 2D, second capacitor 23; para. 0026) embedded within a cavity (cavity 200; para. 0024) of a substrate core (core layer 20; para. 0023) of a (substrate 2a; para. 0023); and
an additional element (first capacitor 21; para. 0024) bonded through a bonding layer (bonding layer 22; para. 0026) to the passive device (23) to form an electronic component aggregation (21, 22, 23);
wherein the maximum thickness of the electronic component aggregation (total thickness of 21, 22, 23) is substantially equal to a thickness of the substrate core (thickness of 20).
Lai fails to explicitly teach the additional element comprises a dummy substrate.
However, Kim teaches the additional element (Kim: fig. 3, inner substrate 410; para. 0034, similar to 21 of Lai) comprises a dummy substrate (Kim: 410 is dummy/non-functional here without redistribution wirings; para. 0034).
Kim and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dummy substrate as taught by Kim.
Doing so would realize a dummy substrate to replace a capacitor to achieve a simpler/cheaper setting for some function just need one capacity and provide the same height for the package having compact size fitting the same core and improved electrical characteristics (Kim: para. 0073).
Regarding claim 21, Lai in view of Kim teaches The substrate of claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the cavity (Lai: fig. 2D, 200) between the passive device (Lai: 23) and the substrate core (Lai: 20) is filled with a generic material (Lai: first dielectric material 24a; para. 0027).
Lai in view of Kim as applied to claim 11 fails to explicitly teach the generic material is a resin-based material.
However, Kim teaches the generic material is a resin-based material (Kim: fig. 3, molding layer 500 is a thermosetting resin; para. 0111, similar to 24a of Lai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a resin-based material as taught by Kim.
Doing so would realize a dielectric polymer easy for filling (para. 0111). Furthermore, 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 its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Kim as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20180342467).
Regarding claim 16, Lai teaches the semiconductor substrate of claim 11, including the passive device (fig. 2D, 23).
Lai in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach the passive device comprises a silicon capacitor.
However, Lim teaches the passive device (Lim: fig. 3B, embedded components 312-1; para. 0050, similar to 23 of Lai) comprises a silicon capacitor (Lim: silicon capacitors; para. 0021).
Lim, Kim and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the electronic component comprises a silicon capacitor as taught by Lim into Lai.
Doing so would realize capacitors in the embedded components to increase available area for coupling components on the surface of the package substrate (Lim: para. 0031). Furthermore, 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 its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Kim as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20200395306).
Regarding claim 17, Lai in view of Kim teaches the substrate of claim 11, including the passive device (Lai: fig. 2D, 23).
Lai in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach the passive device has a maximum thickness of approximately 775 microns.
However, Chen teaches the passive device (Chen: fig. 10I, bottom semiconductor dies 626; para. 0100, similar to 23 of Lai) has a thickness approximately between about 25 μm and about 750 μm (Chen: thickness of 626 approximately is half of substrate 302, which is between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm and has cavities; para. 0036, similar to 20 of Lai), which overlaps the thickness range a maximum thickness of approximately 775 microns.
Chen, Kim and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness range from approximately between about 25 μm and about 750 μm to a maximum thickness of approximately 775 microns.
Doing so would realize a substrate core structure providing structural support, and reducing package size. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 18, Lai in view of Kim teaches the semiconductor substrate of claim 11, including the substrate core (Lai: fig. 2D, 20).
Lai in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach the thickness of the substrate core is greater than approximately 800 microns.
However, Chen teaches the thickness of the substrate core substrate core (Chen: fig. 10J, thickness of substrate 302 has cavities; para. 0036, similar to 20 of Lai) is between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm (Chen: between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm; para. 0036), which overlaps the thickness range of greater than approximately 800 microns.
Chen, Kim and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness range from between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm to greater than approximately 800 microns.
Doing so would realize a substrate core structure providing structural support, and reducing package size. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 19, Lai in view of Kim and Chen teaches the substrate of claim 18, including a combined thickness of the passive device and the addition element (Chen: fig. 10I, combined thickness of semiconductor dies 626; para. 0100, similar to 21, 23 of Lai).
Lai in view of Kim and Chen as applied to claim 18 above fails to explicitly teach the combined thickness is greater than approximately 800 microns.
However, Chen teaches the combined thickness (Chen: fig. 10I, combined thickness of 626) is approximately between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm (Chen: combined thickness of 626 approximately as 302, which is between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm; para. 0036), which overlaps the thickness range of greater than approximately 800 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness range from approximately between about 50 μm and about 1500 μm to greater than approximately 800 microns.
Doing so would realize a substrate core structure providing structural support, and reducing package size. Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of Ra et al. (US 20170162334).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches a substrate (fig. 2D, substrate 2a; para. 0023) comprising:
a passive device (second capacitor 23; para. 0026) embedded within a cavity (cavity 200; para. 0024) of a substrate core (core layer 20; para. 0023) of the substrate (2a); and
an additional element (first capacitor 21; para. 0024) bonded through a bonding layer (bonding layer 22; para. 0026) to the passive device (23) to form an passive device aggregation (21, 22, 23);
wherein the maximum thickness of the passive device aggregation (total thickness of 21, 22, 23) is substantially equal to a thickness of the substrate core (thickness of 20).
Lai fails to explicitly teach the additional element comprises a dummy substrate.
However, Ra teaches the additional element (Ra: fig. 4, first capacitor 101, dummy substrate 103; para. 0081, similar to 21 of Lai) comprises a dummy substrate (Ra: 103).
Ra and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dummy substrate as taught by Ra.
Doing so would realize a dummy substrate with electrodes printed to improve the connection (Ra: para. 0088, 0092).
Regarding claim 20, Lai teaches a device (fig. 2G) comprising:
a passive device (fig. 2D, second capacitor 23; para. 0026) embedded within a cavity (cavity 200; para. 0024) of a substrate core (core layer 20; para. 0023) of a (substrate 2a; para. 0023); and
an additional element (first capacitor 21; para. 0024) bonded through a bonding layer (bonding layer 22; para. 0026) to the passive device (23) to form an electronic component aggregation (21, 22, 23);
wherein the maximum thickness of the electronic component aggregation (total thickness of 21, 22, 23) is substantially equal to a thickness of the substrate core (thickness of 20).
Lai fails to explicitly teach the additional element comprises a dummy substrate.
However, Ra teaches the additional element (Ra: fig. 4, first capacitor 101, dummy substrate 103; para. 0081, similar to 21 of Lai) comprises a dummy substrate (Ra: 103).
Ra and Lai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor package devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dummy substrate as taught by Ra.
Doing so would realize a dummy substrate with electrodes printed to improve the connection (Ra: para. 0088, 0092).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-13 and 15-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
