DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed 11/6/25.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. 2019/0051622 A1; “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a package structure, comprising:
A first package having an active region (center area of 100, Fig. 1) and a peripheral region (left and right lateral sides to the center area, Fig. 1), surrounding the active region,
Wherein the first package comprises:
A first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) ([0028]);
A second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1) disposed over the first redistribution structure ([0048]);
A die (101, Fig. 1) disposed in the active region ([0020]), wherein the die is located between the first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) and the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1), and the die (101, Fig. 1) is physically separated (by 102, Fig. 1) from the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1);
An encapsulant (104, Fig. 1) laterally encapsulating the die (101, Fig. 1) ([0027]); and
A seal ring structure (111, 106, Fig. 1) disposed in the peripheral region, wherein a first portion (106, Fig. 1) of the seal ring structure is embedded in the first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) ([0035]), and a second portion (111, Fig. 1) of the seal ring structure is embedded in the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1) ([0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) comprises first dielectric layers (105a, Fig. 1) and first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1) stacked alternately, the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1) comprises second dielectric layers (110a, Fig. 1) and second conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1) stacked alternately, the first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1) and the second conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1) are located in the active region (center area of 100, Fig. 1), and the first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1), the second conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1), and the die (101, Fig. 1) are electrically connected to one another.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses conductive structures (108, Fig. 1) penetrating through the encapsulant (104, Fig. 1) to electrically connect the first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1) and the second conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1) ([0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the first portion (106, Fig. 1) of the seal ring structure comprises first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) and the second portion (111, Fig. 1) of the seal ring structure comprises second seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1), the first dielectric layers (105a, Fig. 1) and the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) are stacked alternately, and the second dielectric layers (110a, Fig. 1) and the second seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) are stacked alternately.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) and the second seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) are electrically floating ([0036], [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses a top surface of the topmost second dielectric layer (110a, Fig. 1) is located at a level height higher than that of a top surface of the topmost second seal ring pattern (111, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses each of the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) comprises a via portion penetrating through the corresponding first dielectric layer (105a, Fig. 1), and the via portions of each of the first seal ring patterns are aligned along an extending direction of the via portions ([0035]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses a second package stacked on the first package, wherein the second package is electrically connected to the second redistribution structure ([0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses a package-on-package (PoP) structure, comprising:
A first package having an active region (center area of 100, Fig. 1) and a peripheral region (left and right lateral sides to the center area, Fig. 1) surrounding the active region, comprising:
A first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1), comprising first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1) disposed in the active region and first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) disposed in the peripheral region;
A die (101, Fig. 1) disposed on (as in “contacting”) the first redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1), wherein the die is electrically connected to the first conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1);
An encapsulant (104, Fig. 1) laterally encapsulating the die (101, Fig. 1) ([0027]); and
A second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1) disposed on (as in “vertically overlapping”) the die (101, Fig. 1) and the encapsulant (104, Fig. 1), wherein the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1) comprises second conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1) disposed in the active region and second seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) disposed in the peripheral region, the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) and the second seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) are electrically floating ([0036], [0053]), and the die (101, Fig. 1) is physically separated from (by 102, Fig. 1) the second redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. 2019/0051622 A1; “Chen”) as applied to claim 7 above, respectively, and further in view of Singh et al. (U.S. 2018/0315723 A1; “Singh”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a topmost second dielectric layer (110a, Fig. 1) and a topmost second seal ring pattern (111, Fig. 1) but does not disclose they are coplanar. However, Singh discloses a topmost [second] dielectric layer (uppermost 122, Fig. 1) and a topmost [second] seal ring pattern (uppermost 125a, uppermost 125b, Fig. 1) are coplanar (Fig. 1; [0017]). This has the advantage of the second seal ring pattern providing protection of an active region along the length of the [second] dielectric layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Chen with the topmost second dielectric layer and the topmost second seal ring pattern being coplanar, as taught by Singh, so as to provide additional protection along the length of the second dielectric layer.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. 2019/0051622 A1; “Chen”) as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. 2017/0110421 A1; “Liu”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses each of the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) comprises a via portion penetrating through the corresponding first dielectric layer (105a, Fig. 1) ([0035]) but does not disclose the via portion of at least one of the first seal ring patterns is misaligned along an extending direction of the via portions. However, Liu discloses at least a via portion of a first seal ring pattern is misaligned along an extending direction of the other via portions of the first seal ring pattern ([0119]; Fig. 8A-8B). Because both Chen and Liu teach methods of using first seal ring patterns with vias portions, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of at least a via portion of the first seal ring pattern is misaligned along an extending direction of the via portions. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses each of the first seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) comprises a via portion ([0035]) but does not disclose at least two via portions are staggered. However, Liu discloses at least a via portion of a first seal ring pattern is staggered along an extending direction of the other via portions of the first seal ring pattern ([0119]; Fig. 8A-8B). Because both Chen and Liu teach methods of using first seal ring patterns with vias portions, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of at least two vias portions of the first seal ring patterns being staggered. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. 2019/0051622 A1; alternative interpretation; “Chen 1”) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2021/0375826 A1; “Chen 2”).
Regarding claim 13, Chen 1 discloses a package-on-package (PoP) structure, comprising:
A first package having an active region (center area of 100, Fig. 1) and a peripheral region (left and right lateral sides to the center area, Fig. 1) surrounding the active region, comprising:
A first redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1), comprising first conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1) disposed in the active region and first seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) disposed in the peripheral region;
A die (101, Fig. 1) disposed on the first redistribution structure (110, Fig. 1), wherein the die is electrically connected to the first conductive patterns (110b, Fig. 1);
An encapsulant (104, Fig. 1) laterally encapsulating the die (101, Fig. 1) ([0027]); and
A second redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) disposed on the die (101, Fig. 1) and the encapsulant (104, Fig. 1), wherein the second redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1) comprises second conductive patterns (105b, Fig. 1) disposed in the active region and second seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) disposed in the peripheral region, the first seal ring patterns (111, Fig. 1) and the second seal ring patterns (106, Fig. 1) are electrically floating ([0036], [0053]).
Yet, Chen 1 does not disclose the die (101, Fig. 1) is physically separated from the second redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1). However, Chen 2 discloses a die (100, Fig. 5) is physically separated from a second redistribution structure (606, Fig. 5) by an adhesion layer which advantageously increases adhesion between the die and the second redistribution layer ([0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Chen 1 with the die physically separated from the second redistribution layer, as taught by Chen 2, so as to increase adhesion between the die and the second redistribution layer.
Regarding claim 17, Chen 1 discloses a second package stacked on the first
package, wherein the second package is electrically connected to the second redistribution structure ([0042]), the second package is attached to the first package through connectors (107, Fig. 1), and the connectors (107, Fig. 1) are partially embedded in the second redistribution structure (105, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, and 14-15 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 16-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner notes that claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. 2019/0051622 A1; “Chen”). While Chen was used as the basis of rejections in the previous Office Action (Non-Final Rejection, 7/25/25), a new interpretation of that reference is considered by the examiner in this Office Action in response to amendments of the claims.
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 REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 1/29/2026