Attorney Docket Number: 2207014US
Filing Date: 7/10/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 7/12/2022 (TW111126109)
Inventors: Yu et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 2/26/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as
subject to 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 a 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 and 11-14 in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant cancelled claims 9-10. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-8 and 11-14.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…a width of the cut path…” is already recited within claim 1 (see line 38 “…cut path with a width…”). For the purpose of examination, the “…a width of the cut path…” recitation of claim 8 will be construed to recite “…the width of the cut path…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein chip package unit…” is improper. For the purpose of examination, “…wherein chip package unit…” will be construed to recite “…wherein the chip package unit…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…an outer top protective lay…” is improper. For the purpose of examination, “…an outer top protective lay…” will be construed to recite “…an outer top protective layer…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the eight surface…” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the eight surface…” will be construed to recite “…an eighth surface…”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “…the outside…” in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the line “wherein the chip is electrically connected with the outside by the first conductive circuit or the second conductive circuit…” will be construed to recite “wherein the chip is electrically connected outside of the third surface and the fourth surface by the first conductive circuit or the second conductive circuit”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “…the rest part of the axial connecting circuit…” in lines 40-41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the rest part of the axial connecting circuit…” will be construed to recite “…a remaining part of the axial connecting circuit…”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “…the respective cut areas…” in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the line “…the respective cut areas…” will be construed to recite “…the cut area…”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “…the rest part of the conducting through hole…” in line 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the rest part of the conducting through hole…” will be construed to recite “…a remaining part of the conducting through hole…”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “…the chip package…” in line 42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the chip package…” will be construed to recite “…the chip package unit…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…the three chip package units…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “…the three chip package units…” will be construed to recite “…a third chip package unit stacked vertically with the two chip package units…”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-8 and 11-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kim (US 20230096170 A1) shows a chip package unit with a chip including at least one chip protection layer similar to that of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS WILSON MCCOY whose telephone number is (571)272-0282. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-7:00 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights