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 This action is responsive to the application No. 18/462,204 filed on January 22, 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3 . 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. 4 . 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. 5 . Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20 23 /0 268295 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a semiconductor device, co mprising (Fig. 1A): a substrate (10 called carrier, para [0018]) including an antenna ( 11a1/11a2, para [0025] ) ; an electrical component (14, para [ 0018]) disposed over a first surface (upper surface) of the substrate (10); a first encapsulant ( see the annotated figure below ) deposited over a second surface (bottom surface) of the substate (10) opposite the first surface (upper surface) of the substrate (10) and including an encapsulant block ( 11d1/11d2 dielectric layers, para [0025]) disposed over the antenna ( 11a1/11a2 ); an absorbing material ( absorbing layer: see the annotated figure below) disposed over the first encapsulant with the encapsulant block (11d1/11d2) disposed within an opening (whe re the antenna 11a1/11a2 are placed ) in the absorbing material . Regarding claim 3 , Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), the first encapsulant block (11d1/11d2) extends above the absorbing material (see the annotated figure in claim 1). Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), further including a plurality of openings (see the annotated figure in claim 1) in the absorbing material to accommodate a plurality of encapsulant blocks (11d1, 11d2….) of the first encapsulant ). Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), further including: a second encapsulant (15, para [0037], [0040]) deposited over the electrical component (14); and a shielding material (16, para [0042]) disposed over the second encapsulant (15) and electrical component (14). Regarding claim 6 , Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig . 1A) , further including an electrical connector (15v conductive element, para [0041]) disposed over the first surface of the substrate (10) . Regarding independent claim 7 , Chen et al. teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1A upside down) : an antenna-on-package (1, para [0017]); and an absorbing material (see the annotated figure below) disposed over an external surface of the antenna-on-package (1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6 . 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. 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. 7 . The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non - obviousness. 8 . Claim 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20 23 /0 268295 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0280959 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 from which this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wh erein (Fig. 1A), the antenna-on-package (1, para [0017]) includes: a substrate (10, para [0018]) including an antenna (11a1/11a2, para [0025]) ; an electrical component (14, para [0018]) disposed on (is a directive perspective) a first surface of the substrate (10); a first encapsulant (see the annotated figure below) deposited over a second surface (bottom surface) of the substate (10) opposite the first surface (upper surface) of the substrate (10) and including an encapsulant block (11d1/11d2 dielectric layers, para [0025]) disposed over the antenna (11a1/11a2); the absorbing material (see the annotated figure in claim 7) disposed over the second surface of the substrate (10) around the antenna (11a1/11a2) . Chen et al. is silent to explicitly disclose, wherein the electrical component disposed over a first surface of the substrate . Han et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 3), the electrical component (222) dispos ed over a first surface of the substrate (220), para [0029] . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Han et al. , so as to use as the alternative structure for high frequency device (RF) , thereby providing better pe rformance (e.g., better transmission and reception performance) . In addition, the selection of a known structure based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 9 , Chen et al. and Han et al. te ach all of the limitations of claim 8 from which this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), wherein the encapsulant block (11d1/11d2) is disposed within an opening (where the antenna 11a1/11a2 are placed) in the absorbing material . Regarding claim 10 , Chen et al. and Han et al. tea ch all of the limitations of claim 9 from which this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A) , the encapsulant block (11d1/11d2) extends above the absorbing material (see figure in claim 7) . Regarding claim 11 , Chen et al. and Han et al. teac h all of the limitations of claim 9 from whi ch this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), further including a plurality of openings (see figure in claim 7) in the absorbing material to accommodate a plurality of encapsulant blocks (11d1, 11d2….) of the first encapsulant (see figure in claim 7) . Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. and Han et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 8 from which this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), further including: a second encapsulant (15, para [0037], [0040]) deposited over the electrical component (14) ; and a shielding material (16, para [00 42]) disposed over the second encapsulant (15) and electrical component (14). Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. and Han et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 8 from which this claim depends. Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1A), further including an electrical connector (15v conductive element, para [0041]) disposed over the first surface of the substrate (10). Response to Arguments 9 . It has been acknowledged that the applicant has amended claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, and cancelled claim 2, per the response dated on 01/22/2026. Applicant’s arguments in pages 8-9 of the remarks section, were not found persuasive, because the prior arts, Chen et al. and/or Han et al. or in combination meets each element per the claim languages or according to the claim construct ions with detail explanations/annotated drawings above . Therefore, it is suggested to amend the claim (s) that would differentiate the invention from the prior arts. Conclusion 10 . Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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. 1 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8823 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT William Partridge can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1402 . 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. /DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812