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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I directed to Figs. 1-2 (claims 1-2 and 6-8) in the reply filed on January 8th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement among Species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on December 16th, 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of December 16th, 2025 is withdrawn. Claims 3-5, directed to non-elected Species are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the at least one metal wire in an upper tier” and “the at least one metal wire in a lower tier” in lines 1-2. It is unclear to the examiner how can the same metal wire being in the upper tier and the lower tier the same time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are allowed over prior art of record.
Claim 4 will be allowed over prior art of record if amended to overcome the 112 rejection as set forth in the office action above.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reason for allowance: the prior art made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the following:
Regarding claim 1, Song et al. (Patent No.: US 2012/0061816 A1) discloses a semiconductor device in Figs. 11A-11B comprising: an insulating substrate (substrate 110) provided with a front surface (see Fig. 11B and [0127]); a semiconductor element (chip 120) mounted on the substrate (see Fig. 11B and [0127]); a wiring wire (wire 160) connected to an electrode of the semiconductor element (pad 122) (see [0129]); a sealing resin (molding 130) sealing the insulating substrate and the semiconductor element (see [0128]); and at least one metal wire (wire 290) arranged around the semiconductor element (see [0127-0128]).
Song fails to disclose the semiconductor element mounted on the metal pattern and, wherein a distance between the semiconductor element and the at least one metal wire is greater than a thickness of the semiconductor element. Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1, and therefore also include said claimed limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard 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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights