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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 12/11/25.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 6 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 11-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 are pending and claims 3, 4 and 10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 are subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 2, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., US Publication No. 2012/0061816 A1 in view of Morris et al. US Publication No. 2019/371738 A1 and Choi et al., US Publication No. 2015/0179588 A1.
Song teaches:
1. An electronic package, comprising (see fig. 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
372
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a carrier (110) having a function pad (111; e.g. ground pads);
an electronic component (120) disposed on the carrier; and
a shielding structure (230) including a plurality of bonding wire portions formed on the …function pads (111), …wherein the bonding wire portion is defined with a first line segment and a second line segment (e.g. See fig. 3B annotated for first line segment and second line segment), one end of the first line segment of one of the bonding wire portions is in contact with one end of the second line segment of other one of the bonding wire portions (e.g. See fig. 3B annotated for one end of the first line segment and second line segment.) and the function pad (111), and other ends of the first line segment and the second line segment of the one of the bonding wire portions (e.g. See fig. 3B annotated for other ends of the first line segment and second line segment.) are separated from each other and are away from the function pad (111),
a packaging layer (130) encapsulating the electronic component (120) and the shielding structure (130),
a shielding layer (150) formed on the packaging layer (130) and …electrically connected to the carrier. See Song at para. [0001] – [0211], figs. 1-28.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation “each of the bonding wire portions being provided on the carrier by continuous wire bonding” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
Referring to MPEP 2113, Product-by-Process Claims:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Further regarding claim 1:
Song does not expressly teach the plurality of bonding wire portions formed on the “same function pad”.
In an analogous art, Morris teaches:
(see fig. 2) a shielding structure (12) including a plurality of bonding wire portions (20) formed on the same function pad (22). See Morris at para. [0027] – [0036].
Song does not expressly teach the shielding layer is “directly” electrically connected to the carrier.
In an analogous art, Choi teaches:
a shielding layer (170) formed on the packaging layer (160) and directly electrically connected to the carrier (110). See Choi at para. [0035] – [0047].
Regarding claim 2:
In the embodiment shown in fig. 3, Song does not expressly teach a length of the first line segment and a length of the second line segment are not equal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form “a length of the first line segment and a length of the second line segment are not equal” because Song teaches an embodiment in fig. 6B (see annotation below) where the first line segment and the second line segment have lengths that are not equal.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morris also teaches:
2. The electronic package of claim 1, wherein a length of the first line segment (e.g. segment of 20 with curved right bottom end) and a length of the second line segment (e.g. straight segment of 20) are not equal, fig. 2.
Song further teaches:
6. The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the shielding structure (230) is partially exposed from the packaging layer (130), fig. 3.
9. The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the shielding layer (150) is in contact with the shielding structure (230), fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Song with the teachings of Morris because (i) One large, same function pad minimizes the precision required to connect the bonding wires portion; and (ii) Forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (e.g. forming a plurality of ground function pads into in one integral, same function pad). See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, V. Making Portable, Integral, Separable, Adjustable or Continuous.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Song with the teachings of Choi because ground lines in the carrier may function as paths for proving a ground path to the chips and shielding structure. See Choi at para. [0043].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., US Publication No. 2020/0176394 A1 in view of Choi et al., US Publication No. 2015/0179588 A1.
Liu teaches:
1. An electronic package, comprising (see figs. 5-7, fig. 9, also see figs. 12-23):
PNG
media_image3.png
461
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a carrier (11) a having a function pad (14a);
an electronic component (13, 13a) disposed on the carrier; and
a shielding structure (15) including a plurality of bonding wire portions formed on the same function pad (14a), …wherein the bonding wire portion is defined with a first line segment and a second line segment (e.g. first and second line segments annotated in fig. 7a above), one end (e.g. one end annotated above) of the first line segment of one of the bonding wire portions is in contact (e.g. in contact through intervening layer 14a) with one end (e.g. one end annotated above) of the second line segment of other one of the bonding wire portions and the function pad (14a), and other ends (e.g. other ends annotated in fig. 7a above) of the first line segment and the second line segment of the one of the bonding wire portions are separated from each other and are away from the function pad (14a),
a packaging layer (17) encapsulating the electronic component (13, 13a) and the shielding structure (15), and
a shielding layer (18) formed on the packaging layer (17) and… electrically connected with the carrier (e.g. Shielding layer 18 is electrically connected to shielding structure 15, para. [0047]. The shielding structure 15 is electrically connected to the carrier through vias 115 formed in the carrier 11, para. [0053], fig. 7A.) See Liu at para. [0001] – [0098], figs. 1-40.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation “each of the bonding wire portions being provided on the carrier by continuous wire bonding” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
Referring to MPEP 2113, Product-by-Process Claims:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Further regarding claim 1:
Liu does not expressly teach the shielding layer is “directly” electrically connected to the carrier.
In an analogous art, Choi teaches:
a shielding layer (170) formed on the packaging layer (160) and directly electrically connected to the carrier (110). See Choi at para. [0035] – [0047].
Liu further teaches:
2. The electronic package of claim 1, wherein a length of the first line segment and a length of the second line segment are not equal (e.g. first and second line segments annotated in fig. 7a above).
6. The electronic package of claim 5, wherein the shielding structure (15) is partially exposed from the packaging layer (17), figs. 5 and 9.
9. The electronic package of claim 7, wherein the shielding layer (18) is in contact with the shielding structure (15), figs. 5 and 9.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Song with the teachings of Choi because ground lines in the carrier may function as paths for proving a ground path to the chips and shielding structure. See Choi at para. [0043].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
13 February 2026