DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 3/20/2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 9 and 14-26 have been withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. US 2023/0187295 A1 (Hayashi).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-6 & 20) an electronic package 10, comprising:
a carrier structure 12 having a circuit layer (¶ 51);
a plurality of electronic components 16a,16b,16c disposed on the carrier structure 12 and electrically connected to the circuit layer (through soldering, ¶ 66-67);
a shielding part 14 disposed on the carrier structure 12 and located between two of the plurality of electronic components (14 is between 16a and 16b or between 16a and 16c), wherein a periphery surface of the shielding part 14 includes a non-straight surface defining a protruding portion (e.g. 146a-146g protruding foot portions shown in FIG. 5; or protrusions 150a-150g shown in FIG. 20; or bent top portion 148 in FIGs. 7-8), and the protruding portion is not disposed on a bottom of the shielding part 14 (the bottom of the shielding part 14 is defined by the bottom surface of 146a-146g, therefore, while 146a-146g are located at the lower portion and defining the bottom of the shielding part, 146a-146g are not on a bottom of the shielding part 14; alternatively, protrusions 150a-150g as shown in FIG. 20 are not at the bottom of the shielding part 14 defined by the bottom surface of 146a-146b; alternatively, bent top portion 148 protrudes at the top portion of the shielding part as shown in FIGs. 7-8); and
an encapsulating layer 18 formed on the carrier structure 12 and covering the plurality of electronic components 16a-16c and the shielding part 14.
In re claim 2, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-6) wherein at least one of the plurality of electronic components 16a-16c is a radio-frequency chip (high frequency device, ¶ 50).
In re claim 3, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-6) wherein the radio-frequency chip 16a-16c is a Bluetooth chip or a Wi-Fi chip (no specific Wi-Fi chip claimed that would distinguish over high frequence wireless device taught by Hayashi, ¶ 50).
In re claim 4, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3 & 9) wherein the shielding part 14 is exposed from the encapsulating layer 18 (top of shielding part 14 is exposed at the top surface of encapsulating layer 18).
In re claim 5, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3 & 9) wherein an end surface (top end) of the shielding part 14 is flush with a surface (top surface) of the encapsulating layer 18.
In re claim 6, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1 & 5) wherein the shielding part 14 is a column, a plate, or a frame (plate member 14 shown in FIG. 5).
In re claim 7, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1 & 5) wherein the plate 14 has a discontinuous wall (wall 14 is discontinuous with separation by notches 142a-b and 144a-144f). Such interpretation of a “discontinuous wall” is consistent with Applicant own disclosure of the structure shown in FIG. 3E as a “discontinuous wall” having notches 320,321.
In re claim 8, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the plate 14 has notches or grooves 142a-142b, 144a-144f.
In re claim 10, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) further comprising a metal layer 20 formed on the encapsulating layer 18.
In re claim 11, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the metal layer 20 is electrically connected to the shielding part 14 (¶ 69).
In re claim 12, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the circuit layer G is electrically connected to the metal layer 20 (¶ 69).
In re claim 13, Hayashi discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein a material of the metal layer 20 is selected from copper, nickel, iron, aluminum, stainless steel, or a group composed thereof (e.g. stainless steel, Cu, Ag, or Al, ¶ 69).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Hayashi, Applicant argues foot portions 146a to 146g are formed on a bottom of the plate shaped portion 140 and are not formed between an upper end and a lower end of the plate-shaped portion 140 of the metal member 14 (Remark, pages 9-10).
This is not persuasive. The claimed shielding part corresponding to the entirety of metal 14 taught by Hayashi as shown in FIG. 5. As such, the foot portions 146a to 146g are located at the bottom portion of the shielding part and defining the bottom of the shielding part 14. I.e. the bottom surface of the foot portion 146a-146g is the bottom of the shielding part 14. As such, the protruding portions 146a-146g are not disposed on a bottom of the shielding part 14 since they are above the bottom surface.
In an alternative interpretation, the protruding portion correspond to protrusions 150a-150g as shown in FIG. 20. Protrusions 150a-150g are not at the bottom of the shielding part 14 defined by the bottom surface of 146a-146b.
In a further alternative interpretation, the bent top portion 148 as shown in FIGs. 7-8 that protrudes at the top portion of the shielding part 14 teaches the protruding portion. In this case, the protruding portion 148 is not disposed on a bottom of the shielding part 14.
Applicant further argues the foot portions 146a to 146g are not designed to prevent electromagnetic wave interference (Remark, pages 10-11).
This is not persuasive. Features argued by Applicant are not recited in the claim. No specific structure details has been claimed that would unequivocally define a protruding portion that would distinguish over that taught by Hayashi as detailed above.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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 KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights