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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, US 2019/0304862 in view of Sapone, U.S. Patent 8,890,319.
Lu shows the invention substantially as claimed including an electronic package, comprising:
A carrier 40 having a circuit layer (80,82, fig. 1) a first side and a second side opposing the first side;
A second electronic element 22 disposed on the second side of the carrier and electrically connected to the circuit layer;
An encapsulation layer 12 formed on the second side of the carrier and covering the second electronic element, wherein the encapsulation layer has at least one opening exposing part of the circuit layer (see, for example, fig. 3K);
A metal structure 681 contact-bonded on a wall surface of the opening; and
A conductive element 682 formed on the metal structure and electrically connected to the circuit layer (see, for example, fig. 1 and paragraphs 0023-0067).
Lu does not expressly disclose wherein the metal structure is a combination of a plurality of metal layers stacked on each other. Sapone discloses a metal structure that is a combination of a plurality of metal layers (270,280) stacked on each other in an opening adjacent a solder ball 290 (see fig. 2C and col. 5-line 48 to col. 6-line 2). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lu so as to utilize a plurality of metal layers as the metal structure as disclosed by Sapone because such a configuration is shown to be suitable for use in solder ball configurations.
Concerning dependent claim 2, note that in Lu the carrier is a packaging substrate with a coreless circuit structure (see paragraph 0028, 0061, and fig. 1).
With respect to dependent claim 5, note that the metal structure in Lu is shown to be contact bonded to the circuit layer (again, see fig. 1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, note that the metal structure 681 in Lu is shown to be a single metal layer (see fig. 1).
Concerning dependent claim 7, note that the conductive element 682 protrudes from the opening in Lu (see fig. 1).
Additionally, concerning dependent claim 16, note that Lu discloses wherein the conductive element 682 is in contact with the entire metal structure 681 in the opening.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, US 2019/0304862 in view of in view of Sapone, U.S. Patent 8,890,319 as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, and 16, and further in view of He, US 2020/0251395.
Lu and Sapone are applied as above but do not expressly disclose a first electronic element disposed on the first side of the carrier and electrically connected to the circuit layer and covered by a packaging layer. He discloses a first electronic component 21 disposed on a first side of a carrier, electrically connected to the circuit layer, and covered with a packaging layer 24 (see Figure 2D and its description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lu modified by Sapone so as to comprise the claimed first electronic element configuration because in such a way a packaged device with high integration and elements on both sides of the carrier can be constructed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights