Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/447,315

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES WITH PYRAMIDAL SHIELDING AND METHOD FOR MAKING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Examiner
BULLARD-CONNOR, GENEVIEVE GRACE
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Stats Chippac Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
53%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 7 resolved
-25.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
68
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 7 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 with traverse of Invention I and Species 1a, 2a, and 3a in the reply filed on February 5 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not met its burden in supporting the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner detailed in the Restriction Requirement the reasons for restriction. Specifically, the Examiner asserted the following: Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different method, such as using a selective deposition method for forming the encapsulant material, rather than an injection molding method as claimed in claims 14 and 15. Additionally, different fields of search would be required because the search for the product as claimed would not necessarily yield prior art applicable to the method as claimed, specifically the injection molding method as claimed. Regarding the Species Election Requirement, the Examiner detailed the search burden if the requirement for election between species was not made, specifically that the characteristics are mutually exclusive, and that a search for one species within in a grouping of species would not necessarily yield prior art applicable to another species within the same grouping of species. For example, a search for a shield with a planar top surface and patterned bottom surface would not yield results applicable to a shield with a planar bottom surface and a patterned top surface. Claims 5-6 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 5 2026. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are examined. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Kim” US 2019/0295859). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a semiconductor device (Figures 7A-7D), comprising: a substrate (11); an electronic component (12) mounted on the substrate (11); a first encapsulant (13) disposed on the substrate (11) and encapsulating the electronic component (12, see Figure 7A); and a first electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding layer (shield layer 69) disposed on the first encapsulant (13), wherein the first EMI shielding layer (69) comprises a first plurality of shield protrusions (“v groove”, see Figure 7C) each having one or more inclined sidewalls (see inclined walls of the protrusions of the uneven surface 25 of the shielding layer 69 in Figure 7C). Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the one or more inclined sidewalls (see sidewalls of the v groove protrusions in Figure 7D) converge at a pointed tip (see pointed tip shape in Figure 7D). Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein at least one of the first plurality of shield protrusions (see v groove protrusions in Figure 7D) has a pyramidal shape (see at least para. [0061] and [0091], which disclose the pyramidal shape of the protrusions). Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the first encapsulant (13) comprises a first plurality of encapsulant protrusions (see grooves of uneven surface 25) corresponding to the first plurality of shield protrusions (see the surface of the encapsulant 13 conforming to the surface of the shielding layer 69, thus the surfaces correspond to each other’s shapes), and the first EMI shielding layer (69) comprises a bottom surface conforming to the first plurality of encapsulant protrusions (see Figure 7D), and a top surface parallel to the bottom surface (here, parallel is interpreted to require that the surfaces have the same pattern, which is shown in Figure 7D). 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (“Komatsu” US 2022/0122925). Regarding claim 7, Kim does not disclose a second encapsulant and a second EMI shielding layer. Komatsu discloses, however, a first EMI shielding layer (8a, curved portions of top surface of the encapsulant 6a) and a first encapsulant (6a), a second encapsulant (17) disposed on the first EMI shielding layer (8a); and a second EMI shielding layer (lateral portions of 8a, and 8b) disposed on the second encapsulant (17, see Figure 3) and electrically coupled to the first EMI shielding layer (top portions of 8a, electrical contact between 8a/8b is disclosed in para. [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Komatsu into the teachings of Kim to include the second encapsulant and shielding layer as claimed. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and the combination of the teachings would yield in the predictable result to one having ordinary skill in the art of providing further physical and electrical protection to the semiconductor package. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 8, Komatsu discloses wherein the second EMI shielding layer (lateral portions of 8a, and 8b) has a planar top surface and a planar bottom surface (see Figure 4, which shows planar top surfaces of the lateral portions of shielding layer 8a, as well as planar bottom surfaces of both lateral portions of 8a and 8b). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm. 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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. /Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12525517
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
53%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 7 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month