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 Group I in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that (a) the identified groups pertain to a generic invention and are not mutually exclusive, (b) the claims recite one or more common features, and (c) there would not be an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because: (a) Groups I and II have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, (b) Groups I and II contain divergent subject matter within different statutory categories, (c) Groups I and II require different fields of search, specifically the process claims of Group II would require step and/or temporal limitations which are not required by the product claims of Group I. Further, the examiner notes that Group I and Group II inventions are of different statutory categories.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL, and claims 12-24 are therefore withdrawn.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-24 remain pending in this application. Claims 12-24 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun).
Regarding claim 1, Chun discloses: An electronic package (Chun 800, fig 8, ¶0098), comprising:
a carrier structure (Chun 102, ¶0021, under a broadest reasonable (BRI) of “carrier structure”);
an electronic element (Chun 104, ¶0023) disposed on and electrically connected to the carrier structure (Chun fig 8, ¶0025, 0026);
a cladding layer (Chun 138, ¶0036) formed on the carrier structure and covering the electronic element (Chun fig 8, ¶0036, 0098);
a shielding structure (Chun 864, ¶0101) bonded to the cladding layer and covering the electronic element (Chun fig 8); and
a shielding layer (Chun 876, 878, ¶0109, 0113) ) formed on the cladding layer (Chun fig 8, ¶0101, 0113, at least indirectly), wherein the shielding structure is located between the shielding layer and the electronic element (Chun fig 8, ¶0101).
Regarding claim 6, Chun discloses: The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the shielding structure (Chun 864, ¶0101) is disposed outside the cladding layer (Chun 138, ¶0036)(Chung fig 8).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al (US 20210118765 A1, hereafter Kang).
Regarding claim 2, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun does not teach: wherein the shielding structure includes a plurality of metal layers.
Kang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: wherein a shielding structure (Kang 115, ¶0081) includes a plurality of metal layers (Kan ¶0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shielding structure of Chun such that it includes “includes a plurality of metal layers”, as taught by Kang, in order to improve shielding effect on an electronic element and/or provide effective heat dissipation (Kang ¶0082).
Regarding claim 4, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun does not teach: wherein the shielding structure includes a chromium layer, a nickel layer and/or a copper layer.
Kang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a shielding structure (Kang 115, ¶0082) includes a chromium layer, a nickel layer and/or a copper layer (Kang ¶0082, Ni, Cu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shielding structure of Chun such that it includes “a chromium layer, a nickel layer and/or a copper layer”, as taught by Kang, in order to improve shielding effect on an electronic element and/or provide effective heat dissipation (Kang ¶0082).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose any number of shielding materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20170330839 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 5, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun does not teach: wherein the shielding structure is a metal plate made of a single material.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a shielding structure (Kim 40, ¶0055, 0062) is a metal plate made of a single material (Kim ¶0062, under a BRI of a plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shielding structure of Chun to be “a metal plate made of a single material”, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a slim package configuration (Kim ¶0061-0062).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun, in the current embodiment, does not explicitly teach: wherein the shielding structure is embedded in the cladding layer.
Chun, in at least one embodiment, teaches: a shielding structure (Chun 762, ¶0091-0092) is embedded in a cladding layer (Chun 138, ¶0036)(Chun fig 7, ¶0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cladding layer and/or the shielding structure of Chun such that “the shielding structure is embedded in the cladding layer”, as taught by an alternate embodiment of Chun, in order to allow forming additional features directly on the electronic package without interference (Chun ¶0095).
Claims 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (US 20200381368 A1, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 8, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun does not teach: further comprising a shielding member disposed on the carrier structure, wherein the shielding member is covered by the cladding layer.
Park, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a shielding member (Park 105, ¶0022-0023) disposed on a carrier structure (Park 100, ¶0020)(Park fig 1A), wherein the shielding member is covered by a cladding layer (Park 400, ¶0020)(Park fig 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic package of Chun to include the shielding member of Park, such that “the shielding member is covered by a cladding layer”, as taught by Park, in order to provide a substrate level ground path, there by suppressing electromagnetic waves produced by the electronic element (Park ¶0026, 0079).
Regarding claim 9, Chun in view of Park teaches: The electronic package of claim 8, wherein the shielding member (Chun as modified to include Park 105) is a metal block or a magnetically permeable block (Park ¶0022, fig 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Chun in view of Park teaches: The electronic package of claim 8, wherein a plurality of the shielding members (Chun as modified to include Park 105, at least a plurality of segments in different directions, fig 1B) are disposed on the carrier structure (Chun 102, similar to Park 100) and surround the electronic element (Chun 104, similar to Park 200)(Park fig 1A, 1B, ¶0022, claim 7).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 20190371760 A1, hereafter Chun), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renard et al (US 20170263565 A1, hereafter Renard).
Regarding claim 11, Chun teaches: The electronic package of claim 1.
Chun does not teach: wherein a stepped structure is formed on a side surface of the cladding layer.
Renard, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a stepped structure is formed on a side surface of a cladding layer (Renard 50’, ¶0045, fig 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chun to include “a stepped structure is formed on a side surface of the cladding layer”, as taught by Renard, in order to allow extending lateral electromagnetic interference coverage of the package side surfaces (Renard ¶0046-0047).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 3, it is allowable primarily because the prior arts of record, singly or in combination, neither anticipates nor render obvious the following limitations when taken in combination with all other limitations:
wherein the shielding structure comprises a first metal layer, a second metal layer, a third metal layer, a fourth metal layer and a fifth metal layer, wherein a material forming the first metal layer is the same as a material forming the fifth metal layer, and a material forming the second metal layer is the same as a material forming the fourth metal layer. (Applicant ¶0039, fig 2B-2).
Chun in view of Kang, Kim, or Park, in combination disclose some of the features of the claimed invention, but there is no motivation/teaching and do not render obvious to combine and/or modify Chun, Kang, Kim, Park, or any other prior arts of record so that all of limitations of claim 3 as a whole can be met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD whose telephone number is (703)756-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0800-1700 Eastern 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) 272-3829. 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.
/NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD/
EXAMINER
Art Unit 2818
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights