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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026. Applicant has elected Group II, corresponding to claims 1-14.
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s cancellation of claims 15-20.
Invention Group II, corresponding to cancelled claims 15-20, is withdrawn from further consideration.
The examiner also acknowledges new 21-26, which are deemed to be included in the elected Group II grouping.
Specification
The specification submitted 6/6/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 6/6/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US # 20180145036) in view of Foster (US # 20120320558).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim (US # 20180145036) teaches an apparatus (Figs. 8-10 and corresponding text), comprising:
a circuit board substrate (2500);
a package comprising a semiconductor die (120) and a redistribution layer (142) over the semiconductor die mounted to the circuit board substrate; and
a first component (125) mounted to the redistribution layer over the semiconductor die (shown in Fig. 9).
Although Kim discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus, comprising a shielding structure mounted to the circuit board substrate over the package and the first component.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Foster is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an apparatus, (see Fig. 4 and corresponding text) comprising a shielding structure (18) mounted to a circuit board substrate (14) over electrical components (12) and over a molding layer (16).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the apparatus of Kim with the shielding structure suggested by Foster would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Foster would be to employ an apparatus of claim 1, comprising a shielding structure mounted to the circuit board substrate over the package and the first component. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a shielding structure provides a reduction in EM interference generated by nearby components. This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of EM shielding layers are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim (US # 20180145036) teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first component comprises at least one of a resistor, a capacitor, or an inductor ([0083]).
Regarding Claim 3, Foster, as applied to claim 1, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a molding layer (16) over the package and the first component, wherein the shielding structure (18) is over the molding layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Foster, as applied to claim 1, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a second component (“third component”) mounted to the circuit board substrate and not covered by the shielding structure (see [0093]).
Regarding Claim 21, Foster, as applied to claim 1, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the shielding structure comprises a metal lid ([0075-76] features 166 and features 160 surround the component 12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US # 20180145036) in view of Foster (US # 20120320558) and further in view of Lee (US # 20240355643).
Regarding Claim 5, although Kim in view of Foster discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the second component comprises at least one of an antenna, a crystal, or a filter.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Lee is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches apparatus, wherein: a component (205) comprises at least one of an antenna, a crystal, or a filter ([0024] teaches antennas).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the unshielded components of Kim in view of Foster with the unshielded antenna suggested by Lee would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Lee would be to employ an apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the second component comprises at least one of an antenna, a crystal, or a filter. The rationale for this obvious modification is that an antenna without an EM shield provides wireless communication functions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US # 20180145036) in view of Foster (US # 20120320558) and further in view of Hurwitz (US # 20170213793).
Regarding Claim 6, although Kim in view of Foster discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a wire bond connected to the redistribution layer and the circuit board substrate.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Hurwitz is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches that wire bond pads are a known alternative connection method at the redistribution layer end of a package for attachment to a PCB ([0018, 41]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the RDL connections of Kim in view of Foster with the wire bonds suggested by Hurwitz would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Lee would be to employ an apparatus of claim 1, comprising a wire bond connected to the redistribution layer and the circuit board substrate. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a wire bond is identified in the prior art as a known, equivalent alternative interconnection method and the substitution involves routine engineering skill and predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US # 20180145036) in view of Foster (US # 20120320558) and further in view of Han (US # 20240363550).
Regarding Claim 22, although Kim in view of Foster discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the shielding structure comprises: a seed layer; and a plated layer over the seed layer.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Han is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an apparatus wherein: a shielding structure comprises: a seed layer (rear metal layer 520); and a plated layer over the seed layer ([0056-58]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the shielding of Kim in view of Foster with the seed layer and plated layer suggested by Han would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Han would be to employ an apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the shielding structure comprises: a seed layer; and a plated layer over the seed layer. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a shielding structure being formed with a seed layer provides uniform thickness and minimized conductivity.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US # 20180145036) in view of Foster (US # 20120320558) and further in view of Jenq (US # 20230187378).
Regarding Claim 23, although Kim in view of Foster discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the shielding structure comprises: a wire layer embedded in the molding layer; and a cap over the molding layer and contacting the wire layer.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Jenq is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an apparatus of claim 3, wherein: a shielding structure (see Fig. 9 and corresponding text) comprises: a wire layer (130) embedded in a molding layer (140); and a cap (150) over the molding layer and contacting the wire layer (shown; see also [0024-26]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the shielding of Kim in view of Foster with the wire and cap suggested by Jenq would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Han would be to employ an apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the shielding structure comprises: a wire layer embedded in the molding layer; and a cap over the molding layer and contacting the wire layer. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a shielding structure being formed with a wire and cap provides convenient alignment and miniaturization shortcomings of conventional shields ([0003, 4, 28]).
Regarding Claim 24, Jenq, as applied to claim 23, teaches apparatus of claim 23, wherein: the wire layer comprises a vertical wire bond (shown in Fig. 7-8; see also [0017]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 10, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including a material region embedded in at least one of the passivation layer or the redistribution layer in a wire bonding site, wherein the material region comprises a first material stiffer than a second material of the passivation layer.
Claims 11-14 are dependent on claim 10.
Claims 7-9 and 25-26 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.
Regarding Claim 7, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the redistribution layer is at least partially embedded in the passivation layer, and the redistribution layer directly contacts the molding layer under a portion of the wire bond contacting the redistribution layer.
Regarding Claim 8, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the package comprises a material region embedded in the molding layer under a portion of the wire bond contacting the redistribution layer, and the material region comprises a first material stiffer than a second material of the passivation layer.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8.
Claims 25 and 26 are dependent on claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights