DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 1/22/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-15, and 21-22, 25-26, 28-31 are pending. Claims 4, 12-13, 16-20, 23-24 and 27 have been canceled. Claims 8 and 15 have been withdrawn. Claims 29-31 are new. Claims 1, 10, and 21-22 have been amended.
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.
Claim 29 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 reciting “material of the adhesive is different from material of the lower encapsulating material” lacks adequate support. Applicant’s original disclosure does not specifically distinguish the material of the adhesive and the lower encapsulating material. There is no clear and unequivocal support for the newly claimed limitation.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 14, 21-22, 25-26 and 28-31 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.
Claim 1 reciting “an upper surface of the first semiconductor die is substantially coplanar with an upper surface of the plurality of second semiconductor dies” renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, “substantially coplanar” is indefinite. It is unclear how much deviation from “coplanarity” is allowed by “substantially coplanar”. The degree or magnitude is not clearly defined for the term “substantially coplanar. Furthermore, “an upper surface of the plurality of second semiconductor dies” renders the claim indefinite due to unclear correspondence. It is unclear if “an upper surface of the plurality of second semiconductor dies” is intended to refer to “an upper surface” of one of “the plurality of second semiconductor dies”, or “an upper surface” of each of “the plurality of second semiconductor dies”.
Claim 10 reciting “an upper surface of the first semiconductor die is substantially coplanar with an upper surface of the plurality of second semiconductor dies” renders the claim indefinite for same reasons as claim 1 detailed above.
Claim 21 reciting “an upper surface of the first semiconductor die is substantially coplanar with an upper surface of the plurality of second semiconductor dies” renders the claim indefinite for same reasons as claim 1 detailed above.
Claim 29 reciting “the lower encapsulating material” renders the claim indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. No “lower encapsulating material” has been previously claimed in claim 21 or claim 29. It is unclear what is referred to by “the lower encapsulating material”.
Claim 31 reciting “the same plane” renders the claim indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. No “same plane” has been previously claimed in claim 10 or claim 31. It is unclear what is referred to by “the same plane”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 14, 21-22, 25-26 and 28-31 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
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 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896