DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 06/12/2023.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US
2025/0266417 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a fan-out type packaging structure Fig 3: 300 comprising:
a strain adjustment layer Fig. 3: 106, 116 made of a polymer material (para. 0041, lines 20-21) and having at least 95% laser absorbance;
a plurality of chips Fig. 3: 104, 114 partially embedded in said strain adjustment layer Fig. 3: 106, 116 and being spaced apart from each other (paragraphs 0046 and 0060 mention underfill 106, 116 surrounds the first die 104 and the third die 114; Fig. 3 shows they are spaced apart);
an encapsulation layer Fig. 3: 102, 112 surrounding said chips Fig. 3: 104, 114 and connected to said strain adjustment layer (Fig. 3 shows layer 102 connected to layer 106, and layer 112 connected to layer 116);
a redistribution layer Fig. 3: 101, 110 covering said encapsulation layer Fig. 3: 102, 112 and said chips Fig. 3: 104, 114; and
a plurality of solder balls Fig. 3: 107, 108 disposed on said redistribution layer Fig. 3: 101, 110 and being spaced apart from each other.
Regarding the strain adjustment layer, Lu teaches an underfill material comprising epoxy resin material for securing the die (para. 0041, lines 20-21) which is a polymer material. The specification of the claimed invention (para. 0019) described the polymer material as an epoxy resin. These are both the same material and would inherently have the same properties, such as the laser absorbance of at least 95% as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not” MPEP 21120.1(I).
Regarding claim 10, Lu teaches the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said polymer material of said strain adjustment layer Fig. 3: 106, 116 is an epoxy resin- based material (para. 0041, lines 20-21).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US-20250266417-
A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US-20190281697-A1).
Regarding claim 2, although Lu teaches substantial features of claim 1, Lu fails to explicitly
disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein said strain adjustment layer has a thermal degradation temperature at 5% weight loss that ranges from 350°C to 450°C. However, Abe teaches wherein said strain adjustment layer (resin composition) has a thermal degradation temperature at 5% weight loss that ranges from 350°C to 450°C. In para. 0018, Abe teaches “the 5% weight loss temperature of a cured product of the resin composition may be 300°C or more”. The claimed range of the present application falls within the range taught by Abe. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of creating a device maintaining excellent insulating reliability (para. 0023).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US-
20250266417-A1) and Abe et al. (US-20190281697-A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sakauchi et al. (US-20200283620-A1).
Regarding claim 3, although Lu and Abe teach substantial features of claim 2, they fail to
explicitly disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein said stain adjustment layer has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm. However, Sakauchi teaches wherein said stain adjustment layer (resin composition layer) has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm (para. 0102, thickness of the resin composition layer “10 µm or more”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of forming an insulating layer requiring high insulation reliability (para. 0116).
Regarding claim 4, although Lu and Abe teach substantial features of claim 2, they fail to
explicitly disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein said strain adjustment layer has a dynamic viscosity ranging from 500 and 100000 poise at a temperature between 120°C and 180°C. However, Sakauchi teaches wherein said strain adjustment layer (resin composition layer) has a dynamic viscosity ranging from 500 and 100000 poise at a temperature between 120°C and 180°C. Para. 0093 discloses the lowest melt viscosity of the resin composition is 4000 poise or less (lines 3-4), where the lowest melt viscosity is in the temperature range of 60°C to 200°C (lines 8-10), which falls within the range of the claimed limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of molding the resin composition by a compression molding method, and using the resin composition as a liquid sealant (para. 0092).
Regarding claim 5, although Lu and Abe teach substantial features of claim 2, they fail to
explicitly disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 4, wherein said strain adjustment layer has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm. However, Sakauchi teaches wherein said strain adjustment layer (resin composition layer) has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm (para. 0102, thickness of the resin composition layer “10 µm or more”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of forming an insulating layer requiring high insulation reliability (para. 0116).
Regarding claim 8, although Lu teaches substantial features of claim 1, Lu fails to explicitly
disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein said strain adjustment layer has a thickness that is no less than 10 pm. However, Sakauchi teaches wherein said strain adjustment layer (resin composition layer) has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm (para. 0102, thickness of the resin composition layer “10 µm or more”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of forming an insulating layer requiring high insulation reliability (para. 0116).
Regarding claim 9, Lu and Sakauchi teach the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in
claim 8, wherein said thickness of said strain adjustment layer (resin composition layer) ranges from 10 µm to 95 µm (Sakauchi, para. 0102). Para. 0102 teaches a thickness range that can fall between 10 µm – 200 µm, and this encompasses the range of the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, although Lu teaches substantial features of claim 10, Lu fails to explicitly
disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein said epoxy resin-based material is liquid epoxy resin. However, Sakauchi discloses wherein said epoxy resin-based material is liquid epoxy resin. In para. 0036 Sakauchi teaches a classification of an epoxy resin in the state of liquid at 20°C, and teaches that a liquid epoxy resin may be used in the resin composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of lowering viscosity of the resin composition (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 12, although Lu teaches substantial features of claim 10, Lu fails to explicitly
disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein said epoxy resin-based material is solid epoxy resin. However, Sakauchi discloses wherein said epoxy resin-based material is solid epoxy resin. In para. 0036, Sakauchi teaches a classification of an epoxy resin in the state of solid at 20°C, and teaches that a solid epoxy resin may be used in the resin composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of obtaining a resin composition having a sufficient breaking strength (para. 0044).
Claims 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US-
20250266417-A1), Abe et al. (US-20190281697-A1), and Sakauchi et al. (US-20200283620-A1) as applied to claims 4 and 10 above, and further in view of Ikehira (US-20240371823-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lu, Abe, and Sakauchi teach the substantial features of claim 4, but they fail
to explicitly disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 4, wherein said fan-out type packaging structure has a warpage height that is less than 5 mm. However, Ikehira teaches wherein said fan-out type packaging structure (para. 0037, fan-out structure) has a warpage height that is less than 5 mm. In paragraphs 0222-0225, Ikehira teaches an evaluation of warpage, and specifically a warpage amount of 0-2 mm in para. 0225. This falls within the range of the claimed limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of creating an insulating layer having a highly flat surface and excellent dielectric property to suppress transmission loss when operating in a high-frequency environment (para. 0004).
Regarding claim 7, Sakauchi teaches the fan-out type packaging structure, wherein said strain
adjustment layer (resin composition layer) has a thickness that is no less than 10 µm (para. 0102, thickness of the resin composition layer “10 µm or more”).
Regarding claim 13, although Lu teaches substantial features of claim 10, Lu fails to explicitly
disclose the fan-out type packaging structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein said epoxy resin-based material is epoxy resin copolymer. However, Ikehira teaches the fan-out type packaging structure wherein said epoxy resin-based material is epoxy resin copolymer. Para. 0154 lists different copolymers i.e. acrylate ester copolymer resin containing a carboxy group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the purpose of obtaining an insulating layer having a high cohesion power and intra-layer adhesion strength (para. 0150).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 September 26, 2025