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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed January 12, 2026. The amendments to the claims filed January 12, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 13-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 2-12 and 16-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 2-12 and 16-20 originally claimed, inter alia, “at least one of the first wires comprises a curved portion contacting the first element,” and “wherein the wire bond connection further comprises a conductive wire connected to the wire through the ball bond,” respectively. However, the newly amended claims recite, inter alia, “a seed layer covering a bottom surface of the first recess, inner sidewalls of the first recess, and a portion of the first surface of the wiring structure, and wherein the plurality of first wires are disposed on and in contact with the seed layer,” and “a seed layer covering a bottom surface of the first recess, inner sidewalls of the first recess, and a portion of the first surface of the wiring structure, and wherein the plurality of wires are disposed on and in contact with the seed layer,” respectively.
Invention I, corresponding to amended claims 1 and 13-15, and Invention II, corresponding to amended claims 2-12 and 16-20, are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because it does not require a “seed layer”. The subcombination has separate utility such as providing a wiring connection for structural support, instead of for electrical connection, such as when the seed layer is an insulative material.
A serious search burden can be evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search. See MPEP § 808.02. The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Invention I would require a search in at least CPC H10W72/531 and CPC H10W72/536 along with a unique text search. Invention II would not be searched as above, and would instead require a search in at least CPC H10W72/923, along with a unique text search. The separate classification of Invention I and Invention II shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and therefore requires a separate field of search.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 2-12 and 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed September 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103, as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the references as applied in the current Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 8 that the dependent claims are patentably distinct over the prior art, and are also allowable based at least on their dependency from the independent claims 1 and 13, as amended, see the rejections of the claims below.
Claim Objections
Claim 13, and claims 14-15 dependent therefrom, is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13, as amended, recites, inter alia, “wherein the plurality of wires include conductive nanowires and disposed in the first recess.” This appears to be a typo. For examination purposes, this limitation of claim 13 will be interpreted as “wherein the plurality of wires include conductive nanowires [[and]] disposed in the first recess.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodsky et al., US 2008/0239683 A1 (hereinafter Brodsky) in view of Tsai et al., US 2023/0154913 (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, as amended, Brodsky discloses: A package structure, comprising: a wiring structure (Brodsky, FIG. 6, frame 602 including bus bars 104 and 106, [0057]) having a first recess (Brodsky, FIG. 6, holes 324 and 326) recessed from a first surface of the wiring structure (Brodsky, FIG. 6 shows holes 324 and 326 recessed from upper surface [the first surface] of frame 602 [the wiring structure]); a first element disposed over the first surface of the wiring structure (Brodsky, FIG. 6, module substrate 108 including contact pads 312); a plurality of first wires disposed in the first recess (Brodsky, FIG. 6, LGA contacts 610) and extending in a direction from the wiring structure to the first element (Brodsky, FIG. 6 shows LGA contacts 610 [the plurality of first wires] extending from frame 602 [the wiring structure] to module substrate 108 [the first element]), (Brodsky, FIG. 6, module substrate 108, “electronic components are generally packaged using electronic packages (i.e., modules) that include a module substrate,” [0032; see also [0004]).
Brodsky is silent regarding wherein the first wires are configured to reduce an inclination of the first element with respect to the first surface of the wiring structure. However, while features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function or intended use. See MPEP 2114; see also MPEP 2103(C). The claim language the first wires are configured to reduce an inclination of the first element with respect to the first surface of the wiring structure does not structurally distinguish over the LGA contacts 610 [the plurality of first wires] extending from upper surface [the first surface] of frame 602 [the wiring structure] to module substrate 108 [the first element] of Brodsky which discloses the structure as claimed. Additionally, because Applicant’s specification is entirely silent as to how an inclination of the first element with respect to the first surface of the wiring structure is reduced by the structural configuration of the first wires, that silence suggests that figuring out how to achieve this result was within the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.03.
Brodsky is silent regarding an encapsulant encapsulating and contacting a top surface and a bottom surface of the first element. However, Tsai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches: an encapsulant encapsulating and contacting a top surface and a bottom surface of the first element (Tsai, FIG. 3 shows encapsulant 60A [the encapsulant] deposited over and laterally surrounding device die 50A [the first element], “the encapsulant 60A may also extend below the device die 50A and laterally surround the contact pads,” [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brodsky with the teachings of Tsai, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as recognized by Tsai, to fill space between the device die and adjacent surfaces with an insulative and protective material, thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Although Brodsky does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of first wires include conductive nanowires, Brodsky explicitly teaches the advantages of forming electrical interconnection by means of resilient wire bundles with a wire diameter in the range of approximately 0.002 inch in order to provide multiple contact points, thereby increasing reliability of the electrical interconnection, was known in the art (Brodsky, see [0064]). Applicant has not provided any dimensions for the claimed conductive nanowires, and teaches in the specification that the term “conductive nanowires” refers to wires having “a relatively small size,” (Applicant’s specification, “wires (e.g., conductive nanowires) can have a relatively small size,” [0060]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relatively small size wire bundle interconnects as taught by Brodsky are analogous to Applicant’s claimed conductive nanowires. Additionally, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Brodsky, insofar as using wires of a relatively small size, i.e., conductive nanowires, thereby arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Brodsky, to increase reliability of the electrical interconnection, thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al., US 2021/0375783 A1 (hereinafter Chiu) in view of Brodsky.
Regarding claim 13, as amended, Chiu discloses: A package structure, comprising: a wiring structure (Chiu, FIG. 3A, carrier 20, “the carrier 20 is a package substrate with a core layer and a circuit structure,” [0042]) having a first recess recessed from a first surface of the wiring structure (Chiu, FIG. 3A shows function pads 202 formed in recessed portion of upper surface [the first surface] of carrier 20 [the wiring structure]); a wire bond connection disposed over the wiring structure (Chiu, FIG. 3A, shielding layer 24 connected to carrier 20, [0057-0059]); a plurality of wires connecting the wiring structure to a first surface of the wire bond connection (Chiu, FIG. 3A shows bonding wire portions 220 [the plurality of wires] connecting carrier 20 [the wiring structure] to lower surface of shielding layer 24 [the first surface of the wire bond connection]) and configured to define a non-planar profile of the first surface of the wire bond connection (Chiu, FIG. 3A shows non-planar profile of lower surface of shielding layer 24 [the first surface of the wire bond connection] defined by bonding wire portions 220 [the plurality of wires]); and an encapsulant encapsulating and contacting an outermost lateral surface and a bottom surface of the wire bond connection (Chiu, FIG. 3A packaging layer 23, [0052-0053])
Chiu is silent regarding: wherein the plurality of wires include conductive nanowires disposed in the first recess.
However, Brodsky, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the advantages of forming electrical interconnection by means of resilient wire bundles with a wire diameter in the range of approximately 0.002 inch inserted into plated through holes in order to provide multiple contact points, thereby increasing reliability of the electrical interconnection, was known in the art (Brodsky, see [0064]). Applicant has not provided any dimensions for the claimed conductive nanowires, and teaches in the specification that the term “conductive nanowires” refers to wires having “a relatively small size,” (Applicant’s specification, “wires (e.g., conductive nanowires) can have a relatively small size,” [0060]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relatively small size wire bundle interconnects as taught by Brodsky are analogous to Applicant’s claimed conductive nanowires. Additionally, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chiu with the teachings of Brodsky, arriving at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation. The motivation for doing so would be, as expressly recognized by Brodsky, to increase reliability of the electrical interconnection, thereby improving device performance and reliability.
Regarding claim 14, as amended, Chiu in view of Brodsky teaches: The package structure as claimed in claim 13, wherein the wire bond connection (Chiu, FIG. 3A shielding layer 24) includes a ball bond and a conductive wire disposed on the ball bond (Chiu, FIG. 2C shows ball 220a [the ball bond] and bonding wire portions 220 [the conductive wire], [0050-0051]), wherein the plurality of wires include first wires inserted into the wire bond connection (Chiu, FIG. 3A, bonding wire portions 220 [the first wires] shown inserted into concavity of lower surface of shielding layer 24 [the wire bond connection], [0051]), and wherein end portions of the first wires are embedded in the ball bond of the bonding wire element (Chiu, FIG. 2C shows end portions of bonding wire portions 220 [end portions of the first wires] embedded into ball 220a [the ball bond of the bonding wire element] as a result of the wire bonding process, [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, as amended, Chiu in view of Brodsky teaches nearly every element of claim 15 but is silent regarding: wherein the ball bond of the wire bond connection includes a non-planar profile of a bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface of the ball bond is gradually inclined with respect to a top surface of the wiring structure.
However, Chiu teaches that wire bond connections can be connected by means of a ball bond, which has a non-planar profile of a bottom surface due to its ball shape, the upper and lower hemispheres of the ball shape being gradually inclined with respect to a top surface of the wiring structure, and that it was known in the art to use a wire bonding machine using stitch bonding and forming a ball at the cut-off location to make a wire bond connection (Chiu, see FIG. 2C, [0049-0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention with predictable results and without undue experimentation because all the claimed elements were known in the art, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of wire bonding, including ball formation and stitch bonding of a wire bond connection, as taught by Chiu, would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The cited prior art discloses similar materials, devices, and methods.
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 DEREK NIELSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M..
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, DALE E PAGE can be reached at (571) 270-7877. 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.
/D.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights