Attorney Docket Number: QCOM-4996US (2305718)
Filing Date: 07/14/2023
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Liu et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 03/18/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 03/18/2026 in reply to the previous Office action mailed on 12/18/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-18 and 21-22, with claims 19-20 being cancelled, claims 21-22 being newly added, and claims 13 and 16-18 remaining withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degani (US 2008/0061420) in view of Pietambaram (US 2022/0375865) and Brun (US 2023/0307341).
Regarding claim 21, Degani (see, e.g., fig. 10) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device comprising:
a first device portion (layers including 61 and below) comprising:
a die substrate 11 (see, e.g., par.0021);
at least one first dielectric layer 31;
a first plurality of interconnects 41, 96;
a first encapsulation layer 94 comprising a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0035); and
a first plurality of via interconnects 95 located at least in the first encapsulation layer;
a second device portion (layers including 61 and above) comprising:
at least one second dielectric layer 32;
a second plurality of interconnects 42/91;
a second encapsulation layer 92; and
a second plurality of via interconnects 93 located at least in the second encapsulation layer; and
a first plurality of solder interconnects 71/72 coupled to the first device portion and the second device portion;
wherein:
the first plurality of interconnects 41, 96, the first plurality of via interconnects 95, the first plurality of solder interconnects 71/72, the second plurality of interconnects 42, 91, and the second plurality of via interconnects 93 are configured to operate as an inductor (see, e.g., pars.0011, 0013, 0026/ll.8-13, 0034/ll.1-4, and 0035)
Degani shows most aspects of the instant invention, wherein Degani further teaches that Degani’s first encapsulation layer comprises a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0035). Degani, however, fails to explicitly specify the materials of Degani’s first encapsulation layer, including if the first encapsulation layer comprises an epoxy mold. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Degani, teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, a high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold would be equivalent to a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Degani. That is, the first encapsulation layer materials of both Degani and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, as taught by Degani, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Degani’s first encapsulation layer comprise an epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a first encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Regarding claim 22, Degani/Pietambaram/Brun teaches most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 5-9 above). Degani further teaches that Degani’s second encapsulation layer comprises dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0034). Degani, however, fails to explicitly specify the materials of Degani’s second encapsulation layer, including if the second encapsulation layer comprises another epoxy mold. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Degani, teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold would be equivalent to a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Degani. That is, the second encapsulation layer materials of both Degani and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, as taught by Degani, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Degani/Pietambaram/Brun’s second encapsulation layer comprise another epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a second encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2014/0246753) in view of Pietambaram and Brun.
Regarding claim 21, Song (see, e.g., figs. 10 and 14) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device 1404 (see, e.g., pars.0093/ll.1-2 and 0107/ll.6-7) comprising:
a first device portion (area below 1004) comprising:
a die substrate 1030;
at least one first dielectric layer 1040;
a first plurality of interconnects 1042, 1038;
a first encapsulation layer 1034 (see, e.g., fig. 10, where via interconnects 1032 are encapsulated by layer 1034) comprising a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0089/ll.4-5); and
a first plurality of via interconnects 1032 located at least in the first encapsulation layer;
a second device portion (area above 1004) comprising:
at least one second dielectric layer 1020;
a second plurality of interconnects 1022, 1018;
a second encapsulation layer 1014 (see, e.g., fig. 10, where via interconnects 1012 are encapsulated by layer 1014); and
a second plurality of via interconnects 1012 located at least in the second encapsulation layer; and
a first plurality of solder interconnects 1004 coupled to the first device portion (area below 1004) and the second device portion (area below 1004)
wherein:
the first plurality of interconnects 1042, 1038, the first plurality of via interconnects 1032, the first plurality of solder interconnects 1004, the second plurality of interconnects 1022, 1018, and the second plurality of via interconnects 1012 are configured to operate as an inductor 1006
Song shows most aspects of the instant invention, wherein Song further teaches that Song’s first encapsulation layer may comprise a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0089/ll.4-5). Song, however, fails to explicitly specify the materials of Song’s first encapsulation layer, including if Song’s first encapsulation layer comprises an epoxy mold. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Song, teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold would be equivalent to a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Song. That is, the first encapsulation layer materials of both Song and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, as taught by Song, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Song’s first encapsulation layer comprise an epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a first encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Regarding claim 22, Song/Pietambaram/Brun shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 15-19 above). Song further teaches that Song’s second encapsulation layer comprises dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0089/ll.4-5). Song, however, fails to explicitly specify the materials of Song’s second encapsulation layer, including if the second encapsulation layer comprises another epoxy mold. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Song, teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold would be equivalent to a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Song. That is, the second encapsulation layer materials of both Song and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, as taught by Song, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Song/Pietambaram/Brun’s second encapsulation layer comprise another epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a second encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2023/0082743) in view of Kim (US 2021/0280540), Pietambaram, and Brun.
Regarding claim 21, Yun (see, e.g., figs. 6J and 10) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device 1002 (see, e.g., pars.0047/ll.1-2 and 0064/ll.4-11) comprising:
a first device portion (area including M3(b) and above, not including white encapsulation space 620) comprising:
a die substrate M1(a);
at least one first dielectric layer (see, e.g., par.0048/ll.16-17);
a first plurality of interconnects M1(b), M2(b);
a first encapsulation layer 610 comprising a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.5); and
a first plurality of via interconnects 615 located at least in the first encapsulation layer;
a second device portion (area including M4(b) and below, not including white encapsulation space 620 and interconnects 662) comprising:
at least one second dielectric layer 652;
a second plurality of interconnects M4(b);
a second encapsulation layer 650; and
a second plurality of via interconnects 632 locate at least in the second encapsulation layer; and
a first plurality of solder interconnects 662 coupled to the first device portion and the second device portion
wherein:
the first plurality of interconnects M1(b), M2(b), the first plurality of via interconnects 615, the first plurality of solder interconnects 662, the second plurality of interconnects M4(b), and the second plurality of via interconnects 632 are configured to operate as an inductor 605
Yun (see, e.g., fig. 6J) shows that Yun’s second device region comprises a second plurality of vertical interconnects 632. One of ordinary skill in the art could appreciate that such vertical interconnects constitute as “via interconnects”. Furthermore, Kim, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Yun, teaches vertical interconnects, such as vias and pillars, to be equivalent electrically conductive structures for providing an electrical path for a current (see, e.g., Kim: par.0102/ll.1-11).
Kim is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a via or other vertical interconnect would be equivalent to a pillar interconnect, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the integrated circuit structure of Yun. That is, the vertical interconnect structures taught in both Yun and Kim would yield the predictable result of providing vertical electrically conductive structures configured to provide an electrical path for a current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Yun’s plurality of vertical interconnects 632 constitute either via interconnects, as taught by Kim, or any other form of vertical interconnects, as taught by Yun, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing vertical electrically conductive structures configured to provide an electrical path for a current. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Yun teaches that Yun’s first encapsulation layer may comprise a dielectric material such as glass, wherein Yun additionally teaches epoxy molds to be both suitable materials for use as encapsulation layer materials and functionally equivalent to such dielectric materials (see, e.g., pars.0042/ll.6 and 0047/ll.6). Yun, however, fails to explicitly specify that Yun’s first encapsulation layer comprises an epoxy mold. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Yun, teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold would be equivalent to a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Yun. That is, the first encapsulation layer materials of both Yun and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, as taught by Yun, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents even by Yun itself for their use as encapsulation layer materials and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Yun/Kim’s first encapsulation layer comprise an epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a first encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Regarding claim 22, Yun/Kim/Pietamabaram/Brun shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 25-32 above). Yun (see, e.g., par.0050) further teaches that Yun’s second encapsulation layer comprises a mold. Yun, however, fails to explicitly specify the material of this mold, including if such a mold comprises another epoxy mold.
Pietambaram teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to mold encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold would be equivalent to a second encapsulation layer comprising another mold material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Yun. That is, the second encapsulation layer materials of both Yun and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a second encapsulation layer comprising a mold material, as taught by Yun, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Yun/Kim/Pietamambaram/Brun’s second encapsulation layer comprise another epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a second encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Pietambaram and Brun.
Regarding claim 21, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 2-3 and 14) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device 1408 (see, e.g., pars.0034/ll.1-3 and 0098/ll.9-10) comprising:
a first device portion (area below 215) comprising:
a die substrate 230 or 223 (see, e.g., fig. 10B);
at least one first dielectric layer 212;
a first plurality of interconnects (rectangular portions of 244 in 202 overlapping 300) (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.10-12);
a first encapsulation layer 222 comprising a dielectric material (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.9); and
a first plurality of via interconnects (trapezoidal portions of 244 in 202 overlapping 300) (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.10-12) located at least in the first encapsulation layer;
a second device portion (area above 217) comprising:
at least one second dielectric layer 250;
a second plurality of interconnects (rectangular portions of 244 in 204 overlapping 300) (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.10-12);
a second encapsulation layer 242; and
a second plurality of via interconnects (trapezoidal portions of 244 in 204 overlapping 300) (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.10-12) located at least in the second encapsulation layer; and
a first plurality of conductive interconnects 205/207 (see, e.g., pars.0027/ll.1-2 and 0029/ll.1-2) coupled to the first device portion and the second device portion
wherein:
the first plurality of interconnects (rectangular portions of 244 in 202 overlapping 300), the first plurality of via interconnects (trapezoidal portions of 244 in 202 overlapping 300), the first plurality of conductive interconnects 205/207, the second plurality of interconnects (rectangular portions of 244 in 204 overlapping 300), and the second plurality of via interconnects (trapezoidal portions of 244 in 204 overlapping 300) are configured to operate as an inductor 300 (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.6-10)
Kim shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a device comprising a first plurality of conductive interconnects 205/207 coupled to a first device portion area below 215) and a second device portion (area above 217), wherein Kim further teaches that such conductive interconnects any comprise any shape (see, e.g., par.0032/ll.24-26). Kim, however, fails to specify that the conductive interconnects may be composed of solder. Pietambaram, in the same field of endeavor, teaches interconnects formed of a general conductive material and interconnects formed of a solder material to be equivalent for their use as interconnect structures and equally suitable for coupling the first and second device portions (e.g., 104-3 and 104-2) of a device (e.g., 104) (see, e.g., Pietambaram: fig. 1 and par.0036/ll.26-29).
Pietambaram is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an interconnect formed of a general conductive material would be equivalent to an interconnect formed of solder material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Kim. That is, the interconnect structures of both Kim and Pietambaram would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable conductive pathway between the first and second device portions of a device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Kim’s plurality of conductive interconnects comprise either a plurality of solder interconnects, as taught by Pietbaram, or interconnects formed of another conductive material, as taught by Kim, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as interconnect structures and selecting among known equivalents for their known intended use would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both interconnect structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable conductive pathway between the first and second device portions of a device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Kim teaches that Kim’s first encapsulation layer may comprise a dielectric material, wherein Kim additionally teaches epoxy molds to be both suitable materials for use as encapsulation layer materials and functionally equivalent to dielectric materials (see, e.g., pars.0027/ll.16-17 and 0030). Kim, however, fails to specify the material of Kim’s first encapsulation layer, including if Kim’s first encapsulation layer comprises an epoxy mold. Pietambaram teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold would be equivalent to a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Kim. That is, the first encapsulation layer materials of both Kim and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first encapsulation layer comprising an epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a first encapsulation layer comprising a dielectric material, as taught by Kim, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents even by Kim itself for their use as encapsulation layer materials and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Kim’s first encapsulation layer comprise an epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a first encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Regarding claim 22, Kim/Pietambaram/Brun shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 39-46 above). Kim also teaches that Kim’s second encapsulation layer may comprise a dielectric material, wherein Kim additionally teaches epoxy molds to also be suitable materials for use as encapsulation layer materials and functionally equivalent to dielectric materials (see, e.g., pars.0027/ll.16-17, 0030, and 0031/ll.6). Kim, however, fails to specify the material of the second encapsulation layer, including if the second encapsulation layer comprises another epoxy mold. Pietambaram teaches epoxy mold to be equivalent to dielectric-material encapsulation layers and but one of many valid and suitable material choices for use as encapsulation layer material (see, e.g., Pietambaram: par.0059). Additionally, Brun also teaches epoxy mold to be suitable for use as encapsulation layer material, wherein Brun further teaches that epoxy mold compounds have a low coefficient of thermal expansion, high elastic modulus, and high reliability (see, e.g., Brun: par.0075/ll.21-24).
Pietambaram and Brun are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold would be equivalent to a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device of Kim. That is, the second encapsulation layer materials of both Kim and Pietambaram or Brun would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a second encapsulation layer comprising another epoxy mold, as taught by Pietambaram and Brun, or a second encapsulation layer comprising another dielectric material, as taught by Kim, because these were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents for their use as encapsulation layer materials, and selecting among known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, both structures would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable insulative encapsulation structure capable of surrounding and isolating conductive features in an electrical device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Brun is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have particular incentive to have Kim/Pietambaram/Brun’s second encapsulation layer comprise another epoxy mold, as taught by Brun, so as to ensure a second encapsulation layer that is highly reliable and resistant to mechanical and thermal deformation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are found allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings as filed on 03/18/2026 have overcome the objections to the drawings put forth in the previous Office action mailed on 12/18/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the drawings put forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims as filed on 03/18/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections put forth in the previous Office action mailed on 12/18/2025. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections put forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s signature, admission, and declarative statement on the record on pages 13 and 14 of the “Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” document, filed on 03/18/2026, are sufficient to invoke the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) in accordance with MPEP § 717.02(a)(I)(A). As asserted in MPEP § 717.02(c):
Generally, subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication reference that is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is only excepted when:
(A) a proper submission is filed (see MPEP § 717.02(b)) establishing:
(1) Common ownership. A proper submission may be a clear and conspicuous a statement to the effect that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person; or
(2) A joint research agreement: A proper submission may be (a) amendment to the specification of the application under examination to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, if not already disclosed, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.81(g) and (b) a clear and conspicuous statement to the effect that subject matter disclosed in the prior art was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on the behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h), which was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement.
(B) the reference only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (e.g., not under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)); and
(C) the reference was used in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (e.g., not a double patenting rejection).
Applicant has provided a submission in this file that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Consequently, in accordance with MPEP § 717.02(c) and MPEP § 2154.02(c), Applicant’s statements on the record have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections under Brunner (US 2024/0097648) and Buot (US 2024/0105687) as set forth in the previous Office action mailed on 12/18/2025. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set under Brunner and Buot as put forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights