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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 4/17/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 5-10, 12 and 18 are amended, claims 4 and 11 are canceled, and claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are currently pending.
Claim objections have been withdrawn based on amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-27 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 20240055368 A1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 1/22/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20240055368 A1 and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a shielding element for at least partially shielding electromagnetic energy radiating from an electronic component, the shielding element (Figures 2A and 3A) comprising:
an inner wall (Figure 2A and Paragraph 0045; EMI [electromagnetic interference] layer 240. Figure 3A and Paragraph 0049; the EMI shielding layer 340 is disposed on the encapsulant 330, and covers the top and lateral surfaces of the encapsulant 330 and the lateral surface of the substrate 310. As shown in FIG. 3A, the EMI shielding layer 340 has a bottom surface 340b conforming to the shape of the plurality of encapsulant protrusions 335 of the encapsulant 330. As can be seen from Figure #a, the EMI shielding layer 340 also has a top surface 340a) adapted to face the electronic component (Figure 2A and Paragraph 0040; electronic components 220) when assembled (Figures 2A and 3A; the EMI shielding layer faces the electronic component when assembled), wherein:
the inner wall includes a material configured to at least partially reflect the electromagnetic energy radiating from the electronic component (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033; an encapsulant 130 is disposed on the substrate 110 and encapsulates the electronic components 122, 124 and 126. The EMI shielding layer 140 is formed on the encapsulant 130 and coupled to a reference node or potential (e.g., ground), so as to inhibit electromagnetic waves generated in the semiconductor device 100 from leaking to the outside, and also inhibit external electromagnetic waves from entering into the semiconductor device 100),
the inner wall includes a structure adapted to interfere with at least one of the radiated or reflected electromagnetic energy (Figures 2B and 3B, Paragraphs 0045 and 0050; the electromagnetic wave 252 can be reflected by an inclined sidewall and then bounced back by another inclined sidewall on the top surface 240a of the EMI shielding layer 240. That is, the shield protrusions 245 of the EMI shielding layer 240 can increase the number of times the electromagnetic wave 252 is reflected while reducing or preventing the transmission of the electromagnetic wave 252 through the EMI shielding layer 240. As the EMI shielding layer 240 is made of a conductive or magnetic material, the electromagnetic wave 252 can be significantly absorbed during the multiple reflections. Similarly, the electromagnetic waves 254 can be reflected by an inclined sidewall on the bottom surface 240b of the EMI shielding layer 240 and then bounced back by another inclined sidewall at the same side. Thus, the external electromagnetic wave 252 can be inhibited from entering into the semiconductor device 200, and the electromagnetic wave 254 generated in the semiconductor device 200 can be inhibited from leaking to the outside),
the structure includes one or more elongated protrusions or recesses (Figures 2A and 3A, Paragraphs 0042 and 0049; encapsulant protrusions 235),
the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a ridge shape (Figures 2A and 3A, Paragraphs 0034 and 0042; one or more inclined sidewalls may intersect with each other or with other sidewalls at respective ridges topmost of the sidewalls to form a sawtooth/wave shaped protrusion profile. In some embodiments, the ridges may be in parallel with each other, and in some other embodiments, the ridges may not in parallel with each other), and
the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses are arranged on the inner wall in at least one of a curved shape or a zig-zag shape (Figures 2A and 3A, Paragraphs one or more inclined sidewalls may intersect with each other or with other sidewalls at respective ridges topmost of the sidewalls to form a sawtooth/wave shaped protrusion profile. Examiner asserts that sawtooth/wave shape is equivalent to zig-zag shape).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the structure covers at least 10% of a surface of the inner wall (Figures 2A and 3A; as evidenced by these figures, the shield protrusions 245 covers at least 10% of a surface of the inner wall).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the structure covers at least 10% of a surface of the inner wall (Figures 2A and 3A; as evidenced by these figures, the shield protrusions 245 covers at least 50% of a surface of the inner wall).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein: the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a cross-section when cut rectangular to a direction of elongation; and the cross-section has a shape based on at least one of a truncated cone, a pyramid, a rectangle, or a trapezoid (Paragraph 0034; the one or more inclined sidewalls may converge at a pointed tip to form a cone shaped or pyramid shaped protrusion. Paragraphs 0042; each encapsulant protrusions may have a triangular base).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses are distributed equidistantly on the inner wall (Figures 2A and 3A; as can be seen from the figures, the shield protrusions are equidistantly spaced on the inner wall).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein at least part of the structure is adapted to be arranged opposite to and facing the electronic component when assembled (Figures 2A and 3A; as can be seen from the figures, the EMI shielding layer/shield protrusions are opposite to and facing the electronic component when assembled).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein: the inner wall (Figure 1) includes an inner top wall (Figure 1) and at least four inner side walls rectangular to the inner top wall (Figure 1; four inner side walls rectangular to the inner top wall); the inner wall forms a hollow portion for at least partially housing the electronic component when assembled (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033; EMI shielding layer 140 is formed on the encapsulant 130 and coupled to a reference node or potential (e.g., ground)); the structure is arranged on the inner top wall and not on the at least four inner side walls (Figures 2A and 3A; the shield protrusions are arranged at the inner top wall and not on inner side walls); and the shielding element has an outer shape of a cuboid (Figure 1; the shielding material has a cuboid outer shape).
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 of this title, 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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6-9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (WO 2023013705 A1 and Matsuzaki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a height in a range of height (Paragraph 0033; the EMI shielding layer 140 should be of a thickness that is sufficient to achieve desired shielding performance).
Kim does not explicitly teach a height in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches a height in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm (Page 5; protrusion length P1 of the protrusions 15a is desirably around 0.51 lamba. At 76.5GHz, lamba is around 4mm, thus the protrusion length P1 is roughly 2mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a height in a range of height (Paragraph 0033; the EMI shielding layer 140 should be of a thickness that is sufficient to achieve desired shielding performance).
Kim does not explicitly teach a height in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches a height in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm (Page 5; protrusion length P1 of the protrusions 15a is desirably around 0.51 lamba. At 76.5GHz, lamba is around 4mm, thus the protrusion length P1 is roughly 2mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm (Page 5; protrusion width of the protrusions 15a is around 0.25 lamba. At 76.5GHz, lamba is around 4mm, thus the protrusion width is roughly 1mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm (Page 5; protrusion width of the protrusions 15a is around 0.25 lamba. At 76.5GHz, lamba is around 4mm, thus the protrusion width is roughly 1mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material; and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 10 dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 2 GHz to 120 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material; and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 10 dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 2 GHz to 120 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm (Page 8; transmission attenuation. Examiner asserts that there is no absorber material in the shielding element, since the material does not attenuate EM energy at the specified range). Since Matsuzaki discloses no absorber has been provided, thus the absorber material is design choice, because Applicant has not disclosed that having a absorber material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without any reasonable kind of absorber material. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Matsuzaki to obtain the invention as specified in this claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material; and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 30° dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 76 GHz to 81 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.9 cm to 1.1 cm. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material; and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 30° dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 76 GHz to 81 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.9 cm to 1.1 cm (Page 8; transmission attenuation. Examiner asserts that there is no absorber material in the shielding element, since the material does not attenuate EM energy at the specified range). Since Matsuzaki discloses no absorber has been provided, thus the absorber material is design choice, because Applicant has not disclosed that having a absorber material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without any reasonable kind of absorber material. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Matsuzaki to obtain the invention as specified in this claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches a system, the system comprising: the shielding element of claim 1; and the electronic component (Paragraph 0039; the electronic component 220 may be an application specific integrated circuit).
Kim does not explicitly teach a system for a radar. In an analogous art, Matsuzaki teaches a system for a radar (Page 3; assembly 50 includes electromagnetic shield 10 a and radar 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Matsuzaki because the structure directs and spreads the radar signal after propagating through the side shields (Matsuzaki, Page 2).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim and Matsuzaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the electronic component is at least one of an integrated circuit (IC) or a transmission line (Paragraph 0039; the electronic component 220 may be an application specific integrated circuit).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Tainaka et al. (US 20220132711 A1 and Tainaka hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the inner wall includes a thermal region arranged to be in thermal contact with the electronic component when assembled. In an analogous art, Tainaka teaches wherein the inner wall includes a thermal region arranged to be in thermal contact with the electronic component when assembled (Paragraphs 0041 and 0043; first radio-absorbing and heat-dissipative gel 9 is comprised of, for example, a mixture of a resin member, a heat dissipation filler, and a radio-wave absorption filler. The resin member consists of, for example, silicone-type resin. The heat dissipation filler is composed of, for example, a thermally conductive powder, such as an oxidized powder, a nitride powder, a carbide power, or another material powder. The oxidized powder can be made of alumina, the nitride powder can be made of boron nitride, and the carbide power can be made of silicon carbide. The heat dissipation filler can be composed of one type of material or a mixture of several types of material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Tainaka because it provides level of thermal conductivity (Tainaka, Page 2).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in the claims above.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Kim discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least part of the structure is integral with the shielding element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to separate at least part of the structure from the shielding element, since it has been held that separating a formerly integral structure involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Kim discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least part of the structure is provided as a separate piece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to separate at least part of the structure, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kin in view of Matsuzaki, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Naonori et al. (JP 2008005176 A and Naonori hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kim and Matsuzaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
The combination of Kim and Matsuzaki does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 35 dB. In an analogous art, Naonori teaches wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 35 dB (Pages 6-7; isolation was measured. The frequency to be suppressed is around 77 GHz. As a result, as shown in FIG. 9, when the lid without the periodic structure is used, the deterioration is about 15 dB compared to the case without the lid. On the other hand, when the periodic cover 2 is used, it is about 20 dB better than when the periodic cover 2 is not used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim, Matsuzaki and Naonori because it provides a semiconductor package having a periodic structure that has a higher electromagnetic wave shielding effect than a conventional periodic structure and can be easily manufactured (Naonori, Page 2).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kim and Matsuzaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
The combination of Kim and Matsuzaki does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 42 dB when measured at a frequency of 76.5 GHz. In an analogous art, Naonori teaches wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 42 dB when measured at a frequency of 76.5 GHz (Pages 6-7; isolation was measured. The frequency to be suppressed is around 77 GHz. As a result, as shown in FIG. 9, when the lid without the periodic structure is used, the deterioration is about 15 dB compared to the case without the lid. On the other hand, when the periodic cover 2 is used, it is about 20 dB better than when the periodic cover 2 is not used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim, Matsuzaki and Naonori because it provides a semiconductor package having a periodic structure that has a higher electromagnetic wave shielding effect than a conventional periodic structure and can be easily manufactured (Naonori, Page 2).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seely et al. (US 5386204 A) discloses a high isolation microwave module includes a housing floor with mounting surfaces for placing microwave components and housing walls ending in housing wall ends coupled to and projecting from the housing floor. A lid including a lid plate and lid walls ending in lid wall ends projects from the lid plate. The lid walls extend toward the housing floor and the plurality of housing walls extend toward the lid plate but neither the lid wall ends nor the housing wall ends are coupled to the housing floor or lid plate, respectively. The irises and cavities act as a multi-section high pass filter to provide attenuation to a microwave signal passing through the module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights