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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to a restriction requirement mailed on 10/17/2025 (“10-17-25 Restriction), the Applicant elected with traverse Group I encompassing claims 1-9 on 12/16/2025 “…on the basis that the identified inventions pertain to a generic invention and are not mutually exclusive, and it would not be an undue burden to search and examine the claims corresponding to all of the identified inventions.” (quoting the Applicant in the response filed on 12/16/2025). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument that the inventions are not mutually exclusive, the 35 U.S.C. §121 statute does not require mutual exclusivity between inventions; rather, it has been interpreted to require independent or distinct categorization of inventions. Inventions I and II (Groups I and II) are distinct since the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process as stated on page 2 of the 10-17-25 Restriction.
With respect to the argument that the search would not be undue burdensome, a search for Groups I and II would not be coextensive, because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art because of their recognized divergent subject matter, as exemplified by the different classes and subclasses (Group I is solely classified under Class H01L23/49822, and Group II is solely classified under Class H01L21/4857.). Moreover, a search indicating that the process of using is novel or unobvious would not extend to a holding that the product itself is novel or unobvious. Similarly, a search indicating that the product is known or would have been obvious would not extend to a holding that the process of using is known or would have been obvious.
Therefore, the 10-17-25 Restriction is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Currently, claims 1-23 are pending with non-elected claims 10-23 being withdrawn from examination. Elected claims 1-9 are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2021/0153355 A1 to Matsumoto et al. ("Matsumoto").
Fig. 27 of Matsumoto has been annotated to support the rejection below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
273
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (SB2)][AltContent: textbox (SB1)]
Regarding independent claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a semiconductor package carrier board structure (see annotated Fig. 27 above), comprising:
a plurality of carrier board bodies 30A, 30A (para [0173] - “At this time, the metal plates 30A, 40A, and 50A are located so that the separate regions A1, A2, and A3 overlap each other in plan view. That is, the metal plates 30A, 40A, and 50A are located so that the separate regions A1, A2, and A3 are vertically aligned with each other.”) each including a build-up circuit structure 40A, 40A and a plurality of conductive blocks 50A, 50A wherein each of the plurality of carrier board bodies 30A, 30A is defined with a first surface S1 and a second surface S2 opposing the first surface S1, and the plurality of conductive blocks 50A, 50A are disposed on peripheral surfaces of at least two opposite sides of the build-up circuit structure 40A, 40A and are electrically connected to the build-up circuit structure 40A, 40A, wherein the first surface S1 has a plurality of electrical connection pads 81 (para [0176] - “For example, the bumps 61 of the electronic component 60 are flip-chip-joined to the metal layers 81 formed on the upper surface of the wiring 34…”) for connecting external elements 60, and a cutting path CP is defined by an area formed by the plurality of conductive blocks 50A, 50A, so that an opening 30Z, 40Z (para [0197] - “recesses 30Z, 40Z”) is respectively formed on the first surface S1 of each of the plurality of carrier board bodies 30A, 30A corresponding to each of the plurality of conductive blocks 50A, 50A; and
a plurality of supporting bumps SB1, SB2 each erected between two adjacent ones of the openings and overlapping with the cutting path CP, wherein one end of each of the supporting bumps SB1, SB2 is combined with a bottom of each of the openings 30Z, 40Z and protrudes from the bottom of each of the openings 30Z, 40Z, and a surface of the other end of each of the supporting bumps SB1, SB2 is flush with the first surface S1 of each of the carrier board bodies 30A, 30A.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches two adjacent ones of the carrier board bodies 30A, 30A that are connected to by the plurality of conductive blocks 50A, 50A via the supporting bump SB1 or SB2, and the supporting bump SB1 or SB2 is an insulating block (para [0178] - “For example, the insulation layer 70 is formed on the upper surface of the tape 130 to fill the openings 30X, 40X, and 50X and the recesses 30Z, 40Z, and 50Z and cover the upper surface of the metal plate 50A and the entirety of the electronic component 60.”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches a contour of a surrounding body of the supporting bump SB1 or SB2 that is formed a concave-convex shape (“U-shaped”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 5 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1 and the intervening claims 3 and 4, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 5 and the intervening claims 3 and 4.
Claim 6 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1 and the intervening claims 3 and 4, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 6 and the intervening claims 3 and 4.
Claim 7 is allowable because it depends from the allowable claim 6.
Claim 8 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2022/0115301 A1 to Bowers et al.
Pub. No. US 2021/0020594 A1 to Chiu et al.
Pub. No. US 2006/0216859 A1 to Yang et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 17 February 2026
1 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 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