DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 16, 2023 is being considered by
the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: RF Circuit Device With Ultra Thick Metal and Routing Mesh
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Claims 1-7 and 15-27, Fig. 1) in the reply filed on January 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-7 and 15-27 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 aluminum mesh layer" in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one aluminum mesh layer”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the UTM layer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one UTM”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the aluminum mesh layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one aluminum mesh layer”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the aluminum mesh layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one aluminum mesh layer”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the holes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of holes”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the aluminum mesh layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one aluminum mesh layer”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the UTM layer" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one UTM”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the holes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of holes”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the UTM layer" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one UTM”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layers" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the lines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of lines”
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the routing mesh layers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the at least one routing mesh layer”
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the holes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of holes”
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the holes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the plurality of holes”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 15-27 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the 112 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record, Nagarajan (US 2023/0420384), Gu (US 2021/0233934), Pluymers (US Pat. No. 6,081,989), fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the following limitations in combination with the rest of the claim:
Regarding Claim 1 (from which claims 2-7 and 27 depend), at least one Ultra Thick Metal (UTM) layer, stacked on the RF circuit; and at least one aluminum (AP) mesh layer, wherein the at least one aluminum mesh layer is stacked on the ate least one UTM layer…
Regarding Claim 15 (from which claims 16-20 depend), at least one Ultra Thick Metal (UTM) layer, stacked on the RF circuit; and an interposer, including at least one routing mesh layer, wherein the interposer is stacked on the semiconductor device…
Regarding Claim 21 (from which claims 22-26 depend), at least one Ultra Thick Metal (UTM) layer, stacked on the RF circuit; and two interposers, each including at least one routing mesh layer, wherein the interposers are formed on two sides of the semiconductor device…
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagarajan (US 2023/0420384) discloses (Fig. 3) a mesh RFI shield 348 and RF device 304. Nagarajan does not disclose an UTM or aluminum mesh layer.
Gu (US 2021/0233934) discloses (Fig. 13) RF circuitry 118, an FEOL 104 structure connected with a BEOL 106 connected to metallization layer 108. Gu does not disclose an UTM or aluminum mesh layer.
Pluymers (US Pat. No. 6,081,989) discloses (Fig. 4h) RF manifold 430, connection traces 431 and metallization layer 32. Pluymers does not disclose an UTM or aluminum mesh layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO G RAMALLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/G.G.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights