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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 06/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Mahadevan et al. US 20050067676 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations in claim 1 “wherein the bonding wire has a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer, and the second terminal of the bonding wire directly contacts the die.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig. 11 discloses “wherein the bonding wire 210 has a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal (left end terminal of 210) of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer 214, and the second terminal (right end of 210) of the bonding wire directly contacts the bonding area 202_1 and NOT directly contacting the die” as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 “wherein the bonding wire has a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer, and the second terminal of the bonding wire directly contacts the die” is new matter now found in the applicant’s original specification and drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
250
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig. 11 discloses “wherein the bonding wire 210 has a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal (left end terminal of 210) of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer 214, and the second terminal (right end of 210) of the bonding wire directly contacts the bonding area 202_1 and NOT directly contacting the die” as claimed.
As such, this is new matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahadevan et al. US 20050067676.
PNG
media_image2.png
187
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 9 of Mahadevan discloses a semiconductor package comprising:
a base layer 13;
a die 25, disposed on the base layer;
a molding compound 35, filled over the base layer and surrounding the die;
a shielding layer 42, covering a top surface and the side surface of the molding compound; and
a bonding wire (33/29) contacting a ground signal (par [0030]) - grounded wires 33),
wherein the bonding wire has a first terminal 33 and a second terminal 29,
wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer 42, and the second terminal 29 of the bonding wire directly contacts the die 25 in order to ground the die 25.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek et al. 20210175182 in view of Mahadevan et al. US 20050067676.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 2E of Paek discloses a semiconductor packaging structure, comprising:
a base layer 240;
a die (any die on 206 stack – fig. 2A), disposed on the base layer;
a molding compound (260 – par [0024]), filled over the base layer and surrounding the die;
a shielding layer 275, covering a top surface and the side surface of the molding compound; and
a bonding wire 225a contacting a ground signal (see par [0023], [0029] - conductive component 225a connects the bond pad 245a and the bond pad 245b (e.g., ground bond pads)),
wherein the bonding wire 225a has a first terminal and a second terminal,
wherein the bonding wire 225a extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer.
Paek does not discloses that the second terminal of the bonding wire directly contacts the die.
PNG
media_image2.png
187
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 9 of Mahadevan discloses a semiconductor package comprising:
a base layer 13;
a die 25, disposed on the base layer;
a molding compound 35, filled over the base layer and surrounding the die;
a shielding layer 42, covering a top surface and the side surface of the molding compound; and
a bonding wire (33/29) contacting a ground signal (par [0030]) - grounded wires 33),
wherein the bonding wire has a first terminal 33 and a second terminal 29,
wherein the bonding wire extends between the side surface of the molding compound and the die, such that the first terminal of the bonding wire contacts an inner side of the shielding layer 42, and the second terminal 29 of the bonding wire directly contacts the die 25 in order to ground the die 25.
As such it would have been obvious to form a package of Paek further comprising wherein the second terminal of the bonding wire directly contacts the die such as taught by Mahadevan in order to ground the die.
Regarding claim 4, fig. 2E of Paek discloses wherein the first terminal of the bonding wire is located between a horizontal plane formed by the top surface of the base layer and a horizontal plane formed by the top surface of the molding compound.
Regarding claim 5, Paek discloses claim 1. Paek discloses the base layer to be a package support substrate 240 (e.g., a PCB), but does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises a plurality of lead frames separated from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
187
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 9 of Mahadevan discloses semiconductor packaging structure comprising a base layer 10, wherein the base layer comprises a plurality of lead frames separated from each other.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Paek and Mahadevan wherein the base layer comprises a plurality of lead frames separated from each other such as taught by Mahadevan as support can be PCB or lead frames which are interchangeable as support substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Paek discloses wherein the molding compound covers the top surface and the side surface of the base layer. As such the resulting structure would have been one comprising of the plurality of lead frames such that only the bottom surface of the plurality of lead frames is exposed from the bottom part of the semiconductor packaging structure.
Regarding claim 7, Mahadevan discloses wherein the shielding layer does not contact the plurality of lead frames. The resulting structure would have been one meeting the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, fig. 2E of Paek discloses further comprising: a first bonding wire extending between the base layer and the die, and having a third terminal and a fourth terminal, wherein the third terminal of the first bonding wire is connected a lead frame (interconnect with 202 is a type of lead frame) of the base layer, and the fourth terminal of the first bonding wire is connected to the die and wherein the bonding wire is disposed over the first bonding wire.
Regarding claim 22, Paek discloses wherein the lead frame is disposed between the die and the shielding layer.
Regarding claim 23, fig. 2E of Paek discloses wherein the fourth terminal of the first bonding wire is disposed between the lead frame and the second terminal of the bonding wire.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek and Mahadevan in view of HASHIMOTO et al. US 20150371915.
Regarding claim 8, Paek and Mahadevan disclose claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises an organic substrate.
However, par [0052] of HASHIMOTO discloses of base layer (support substrate 101) is not limited to a metal substrate, and a silicon substrate, a glass substrate, a ceramic substrate, an organic material substrate or the like may be used in accordance with the use or the cost.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Paek and Mahadevan wherein the base layer comprises an organic substrate such as taught by HASHIMOTO to meet cost requirement.
Regarding claim 9, Paek discloses wherein the bottom surface of the base layer is exposed from the bottom part of the semiconductor packaging structure.
As such the resulting structure would have been one wherein the bottom surface of the organic substrate is exposed from the bottom part of the semiconductor packaging structure.
Regarding claim 10, Paek discloses wherein the side surface of the organic substrate is also covered by the shielding layer.
As such the resulting structure would have been one wherein the side surface of the organic substrate is also covered by the shielding layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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 Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights