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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 7.1.2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7.1.2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (Figs. 1-2 and 5-7; claims 1-3 and 5) in the reply filed on 7.1.2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species B (Figs. 3-4 and 8-10) is a modified example of Species A wherein the species cannot be independent or patentably distinct and there is no burden to examine/search both species. This is not found persuasive because the species are drawn to different and non-obvious packages with/without peripheral vias and structures and no evidence has been provided of the species being obvious variants of each other. In addition, the previous Office Action, mailed 5.14.2026, at pg. 5, states the reason for burden of examination/search of Species A and B which the Applicant has not addressed. Finally, the examiner notes that the existence of a generic claim (e.g., claim 1) does not preclude the existence of dependent claims drawn to different species and does not constitute evidence of lack of examination/search burden of different species claimed in the dependent claims. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7.1.2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the antenna is designed in consideration of a first distance from the ground layer formed on the first surface of the substrate to the second surface of the insulating layer and a second distance from the ground layer formed on an inner surface of the recess to the second surface of the insulating layer” (emphasis added) is indefinite because it is unclear when, looking a structure/device to which the claim is drawn to, an antenna is designed with consideration, or without it, of any distances. The limitation “designed in consideration” does not positively recite or imply any structural relationship between the claimed distances (are they the same? Different?) which obscures the scope of the claim precluding one of ordinary skill in the art to be appraised of the metes and bounds of claim; hence, claim 2 is indefinite.
No prior art rejection has been found for claim 2 and it is treated as reciting that the first distance (H1) is greater than the second distance (H2) per Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, “further comprising a ground pattern configured to connect the ground layer and an external circuit to each other by passing through the first surface of the insulating layer and dissipate heat generated by the semiconductor chip to an external circuit” (emphasis added) is indefinite because it is unclear if “an external circuit” which is used in the claim twice refers to the same or different external circuit.
No prior art rejection has been found for claim 5 and it is treated as referring to a common external circuit for purposes of examination.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle et al. (US 20120182066 A1) in view of So et al. (US 20190058241 A1) and LeClair (US 20220071009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Merkle discloses an antenna-integrated high-frequency semiconductor package (Figs. 3-5), comprising:
a substrate (40, Fig. 3) having a first surface (adjacent to 50) and a second surface (away from 50) opposing the first surface and comprising a recess (43) concave in a direction from the first surface to the second surface and a first through-hole (45) penetrating from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 3);
a ground (MPEP 2111, 2112 and/or 2114) layer (46) configured to cover the first surface of the substrate and the recess (Fig. 3);
a semiconductor chip (50) mounted on the ground layer (46) of the recess (Fig. 3);
an insulating layer (71+77) configured to entirely cover (from the first surface) the substrate, the ground layer, and the semiconductor chip (Figs. 4-5); and
a conductive layer (73+76+78+79+81) formed on the insulating layer (Figs. 4-5),
wherein the conductive layer comprises:
an electrode pattern (73+76+78+79+81) formed on a first surface of the insulating layer and connected to the semiconductor chip (Fig. 5);
Merkle fails to disclose an antenna formed on a second surface of the insulating layer; and a signal via configured to transmit an electrical signal between the electrode pattern and the antenna through a second through-hole formed in the first through-hole to penetrate from the first surface to the second surface of the insulating layer.
So discloses (Fig. 13b) an antenna (112dA-1 and 112dA2) formed on a second surface of the insulating layer (130+180); and a signal via (113F-1 and 113F-2) configured to transmit an electrical signal between the electrode pattern (142) and the antenna (Fig. 13b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include the antenna and signal via arrangement of So in Merkle so as to embed an antenna onto a semiconductor package and expand the functionality of said semiconductor package and/or so as to provide “a fan-out semiconductor package in which loss of a signal transfer may be prevented by significantly reducing a distance between a semiconductor chip and an antenna pattern, stable antenna performance may be secured in a single package, an overall size of a package may be reduced, and a process may be simplified” as disclosed by So at [0007].
LeClair discloses a via (F) through a second through-hole (with dimension D3) formed in the first through-hole (including L1 and L2) to penetrate from the first surface to the second surface of the insulating layer (101, Fig. 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include a coaxial via such as that of LeClair in Merkle/So so as to allow for device miniaturization and/or lower crosstalk via the use of coaxial vias (LeClair, [0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Merkle/So/LeClair discloses the antenna-integrated high-frequency semiconductor package according to claim 1, further comprising a shield (L1) formed on an inner surface of the first through-hole (including L1 and L2) by forming the ground layer (“coax outer conductor, L1”) to cover the inner surface of the first through-hole, wherein the signal via (F) and the shield are (L1) formed as coaxial vias (Fig. 1D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest (claim 2) wherein the antenna is designed in consideration of a first distance from the ground layer formed on the first surface of the substrate to the second surface of the insulating layer and a second distance from the ground layer formed on an inner surface of the recess to the second surface of the insulating layer; recall, per the indefiniteness rejection above, the claim is treated as reciting that the first distance (H1) is greater than the second distance (H2) per Fig. 2, and (claim 5) further comprising a ground pattern configured to connect the ground layer and an external circuit to each other by passing through the first surface of the insulating layer and dissipate heat generated by the semiconductor chip to an external circuit; recall, per the indefiniteness rejection above, the claim is treated as referring to a common external circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150325925 A1 to Kamgaing et al. discloses a semiconductor package with an embedded antenna (Fig. 2).
US 20160240492 A1 to Wolter et al. discloses a semiconductor package with an embedded antenna (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights