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 .
This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 1/8/2026 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 1/8/2026.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 1/8/22026.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2023/0138918 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a carrier structure(Fig. 6), comprising:
a dielectric body(42, ¶0026) with a surface defined with at least one die placement area(122, 126, ¶0030) and a peripheral area adjacent to the die placement area(122, 126, ¶0030); and
a circuit layer(120, ¶0030, ¶0016) bonded to the dielectric body(42, ¶0026) and comprising a plurality of conductive traces(121, ¶0030), wherein a winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) arranged around a boundary line(die boundary, ¶0030) between the die placement area(122, 126, ¶0030) and the peripheral area(124, ¶0030) is a continuous bending shape with notches(serpentine, ¶0030).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the carrier structure of claim 1, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a serpentine shape(serpentine, ¶0030).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the carrier structure of claim 1, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a zigzag shape(serpentine, ¶0030, ¶0013).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches he carrier structure of claim 1, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a curved shape or a wavy shape(wavelike serpentine, ¶0030-31).
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.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0138918 A1) both of record.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches an electronic package(Fig. 3), comprising:
the carrier structure(Fig. 6) of claim 1(please see claim 1 above); and
an electronic element(56, 58, ¶0025) disposed on the carrier structure(Fig. 6).
Wang does not explicitly state an electronic element(56, 58, ¶0025) is electrically connected to the circuit layer(120, ¶0030, ¶0016). However, Wang does teach the electronic element(56, 58, ¶0025) is electrically connected(¶0024) to the dielectric body(42, ¶0026) and that fine copper traces act as the transmission highway between electronic elements(56, 58, ¶0025). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang, so that an electronic element is electrically connected to the circuit layer, so that the circuit layer can provide an transmission highway between electronic elements(¶0028).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the electronic package of claim 6, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a serpentine shape(serpentine, ¶0030).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the electronic package of claim 6, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a zigzag shape(serpentine, ¶0030, ¶0013).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the electronic package of claim 6, wherein the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a curved shape or a wavy shape(wavelike serpentine, ¶0030).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0138918 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0200678 A1) both of record.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the carrier structure of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a shape of an English letter R.
Zhang teaches a carrier structure(Fig. 4) wherein the winding shape(4, ¶0038) of the conductive traces(2, Fig. 1, ¶0030) is a shape of an English letter R(Fig. 4, ¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang, so that the winding shape of the conductive traces is a shape of an English letter R as taught by Zhang, in order have a better effect of releasing a stress, and the conductive traces have a higher stability(¶0036).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the electronic package of claim 6, but is not relied on to teach the winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) is a shape of an English letter R.
Zhang teaches a carrier structure(Fig. 4) wherein the winding shape(4, ¶0038) of the conductive traces(2, Fig. 1, ¶0030) is a shape of an English letter R(Fig. 4, ¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang, so that the winding shape of the conductive traces is a shape of an English letter R as taught by Zhang, in order have a better effect of releasing a stress, and the conductive traces have a higher stability(¶0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue Independent claim 1, as amended, recite, inter alia, "a winding shape of the conductive traces arranged around a boundary line between the die placement area and the peripheral area is a continuous bending shape with notches". Referring to FIG. 3A of the present application, a conductive trace 31 arranged at a boundary between a die placement area A and a peripheral area B (i.e., around a boundary line 20a) has a plurality of line segments 31a and a continuous bending shape with notches 30, as shown by the corner of the die placement area A. That is, the continuous bending shape of the conductive trace 31 is simultaneously arranged in the die placement area A and the peripheral area B.
However, Wang disposes the serpentine portion 124 only between the die boundaries of the IC die 56 and the IC die 58, while below the IC die 56 and the IC die 58 are only the straight portions 122/126 respectively.
Therefore, Wang does not disclose the feature "a winding shape of the conductive traces arranged around a boundary line between the die placement area and the peripheral area is a continuous bending shape with notches" as claimed in the present application.. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4 and 5 thereof are not anticipated by Wang.
The examiner recognizes that the placement the winding shape of the conductive traces of Wang around the boundary line of the die placement area 122, 126 and the peripheral area 124 is different than that of continuous bending shape of the conductive trace 31 is simultaneously arranged in the die placement area A and the peripheral area B as depicted in the drawing of the instant application. However, it is well settled that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and a claim must be read in accordance with the percepts of English grammar and words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning. In re Hyatt, 708 F2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, the winding shape of the conductive traces of Wang are around but do not cross the boundary line and would read on “a winding shape of the conductive traces(121, ¶0030) arranged around a boundary line(die boundary, ¶0030) between the die placement area(122, 126, ¶0030) and the peripheral area(124, ¶0030)” as claim as explained above. The examiner also notes that the specific structure of the winding shape of the conductive traces to be simultaneously arranged in the die placement area A and the peripheral area of the instant application is not being recited in the claim language. It is the claims, not specification that are anticipated or unpatentable. In Constant v. Advanced Micro Device Inc. 7 USPQ2d 1064. Therefore, Applicant cannot read limitation only set forth in the description into the claim for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re. Sporck, 386 F. 2d 924,155 USPQ 687 (CCPA 1967). Furthermore, it is proper to use the specification to interpret what the applicant meant by a word or phrase recited in the claim. However, it is not proper to read the limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not recited in the claim; Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc, 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 pm.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892