DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 10 APR 2026 has been entered.
Response To Final Rejection Office Action
The 10 APR 2026 amendments to claims 1 and 11 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Typographical errors:
claim 1, line 6, replace “build up” with “buildup”; and
claim 11, line 6, replace “build up” with “buildup”.
Appropriate correction is required.
New Grounds of Rejection
A new ground of rejection, prior art reference England et al. (US 20220051963), appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over XU et al. (US 20200266149; below, “XU” – previously cited) with evidence from and/or in view of CHO et al. (US 20220108935; below, “CHO” – previously cited 19 NOV 2024 IDS noted prior art reference) with further evidence from and/or in further view of England et al. (US 20220051963; below, “England”). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, XU, in FIGS. 1C, 3-5, and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0126], claims 1-20, discloses a semiconductor device (150) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a circuit (102) comprising a first plurality of electrical contacts (e.g., [0023]); and
a substrate (196, e.g., [0033]) coupled to the circuit (102), the substrate (196) being characterized by a width of at least 50 mm (Regarding the underlined portion, the claim range of at least 50 mm is considered to be an obvious matter of finding an optimum workable range for some chosen design requirement utilizing the disclosure of Xu. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Finally, any difference in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As evidence see Cho’s paragraph [0034].) and comprising a coreless substrate ([0033]), wherein the substrate (196) comprises:
a coreless buildup material (ABF, e.g., [0036]), the coreless build up material (see England for: being free from organic small molecules or polymers);
a top layer (136) comprising a second plurality of electrical contacts (118a-b) and a first organic material (e.g., [0035]), the second plurality of electrical contacts (118a-b) being coupled to the first plurality of electrical contacts (e.g., [0023]);
a bottom layer (132) comprising a third plurality of electrical contacts (116, e.g., [0033]) and a second organic material (e.g., [0035]); and
a plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) positioned between the top layer (136) and the bottom layer (132), the plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) comprising a fourth plurality of electrical contacts (126a-b, 128) configured to provide electrical connections (122/124) between the first plurality of electrical contacts (e.g., [0023]) and the third plurality of electrical contacts (116).
XU is silent regarding the coreless build up material being free from organic small molecules or polymers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a coreless build up material being free from organic small molecules or polymers; since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see England’s paragraph [0042].
RE 2, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the bottom layer (132) comprises a ball grid array (BGA) layer (e.g., [0033]).
RE 3, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the bottom layer (132) comprises a land grid array (LGA) layer (e.g., [0033], [0104]).
RE 4, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the substrate is free from an organic core material (e.g., [0033]).
RE 6, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the top layer (136) comprises a solder mask material (e.g., [0035]).
RE 7, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the
plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) comprises a glass fiber material (e.g., Abstract, [0027]).
RE 8, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) comprises a hybrid material (e.g., [0036]).
RE 9, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) comprises a pre-preg composite material (e.g., [0036]).
RE 10, modified XU discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the substrate (196) consists of fewer than 20 layers (e.g., [0036]).
RE 11, XU, in FIGS. 1C, 3-7O, and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0126], claims 1-20, discloses a semiconductor package (1000A) comprising:
a first carrier layer (750, e.g., [0075]-[0077]); and
a substrate (196) coupled to the first carrier layer (C1), the substrate (196) being
characterized by a width of at least 70 mm (Regarding the underlined portion of claim 11, the claim range of at least 70 mm is considered to be an obvious matter of finding an optimum workable range … utilizing the disclosure of Xu. Moreover, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill …. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Finally, any difference in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As evidence see Cho’s paragraph [0034].) and comprising a coreless substrate (196), wherein the
substrate (196) comprises:
a coreless buildup material (ABF, e.g., [0036]), the coreless build up material (see England for: being free from organic small molecules or polymers);
a top layer (136) comprising a first plurality of electrical contacts (118a-b) and a first organic material (e.g., [0035]), a second plurality of electrical contacts (116, e.g., [0033]) being coupled (122/124) to the first plurality of electrical contacts (118a-b);
a bottom layer (132) comprising a [sic, “the”] second plurality of electrical contacts (116, e.g., [0033]) and a second organic material (e.g., [0035]); and
a plurality of substrate layers (134a-c, e.g., [0036]) positioned between the top layer (136) and the bottom layer (132), the plurality of substrate layers (134a-c) comprising a third plurality of electrical contacts (126a-b, 128).
XU is silent regarding the coreless build up material being free from organic small molecules or polymers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a coreless build up material being free from organic small molecules or polymers; since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see England’s paragraph [0042].
RE 12, modified XU discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the substrate is free from an organic core material (e.g., [0033]).
RE 13, modified XU discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the top layer (136) comprises a solder mask material (e.g., [0035]).
RE 14, modified XU discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the bottom layer (132) comprises a ball grid array (BGA) layer (e.g., [003]).
RE 15, modified XU discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the first carrier layer (750) comprises a ceramic material, a glass material, or an organic material (e.g., [0075]).
RE 16, modified XU discloses the semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the first carrier layer (750) comprises a first surface and a second surface, the first surface being coupled to the bottom layer (132), the second surface being detached from a second carrier layer (Regarding the underlined portion of claim 16, applicants are reminded that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ 10 APR 2026 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 6-7) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions outlined in the above claim rejections. Additionally, the new ground of rejection was necessary due to the applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments vis-à-vis patentability have been fully 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights