DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 15-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 16 and 20 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), Form PTO-1449, filed 14 December 2023, 31 July 2024, 05 August 2025, 06 February 2026. The information therein was considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
(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(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (US 2019/0131257) (hereinafter, “Kong”).
Re: independent claim 1, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 an apparatus comprising: a package substrate (120); a ball grid array (106) on a first surface of the package substrate, the ball grid array including a first ball and a second ball adjacent the first ball (figs. 1 and 4), the ball grid array (106) to enable the package substrate (120) to be electrically coupled to a circuit board (104); and a metal interconnect (112) within the package substrate, the metal interconnect electrically coupled to the first ball (106), the metal interconnect including an inductive loop that extends toward the second ball (including 410).
Re: claim 2, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of claim 1, further including first and second contact pads (above 106 in fig. 4) on the first surface of the package substrate, the first and second contact pads associated with the first and second balls (106) respectively, the metal interconnect (including 112, 410) electrically coupled to the first ball (106) through the first contact pad (210), the inductive loop (410) in proximity to the second contact pad (210) such that the second contact pad is between the inductive loop (410) and the second ball (106).
Re: claim 3, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the package substrate (120) includes multiples layers of metal (including 212) separated by intervening layers of dielectric material (including 204), the first and second contact pads (above 106 in fig. 4) in a first metal layer of the multiple layers of metal, the inductive loop (410) in a second metal layer of the multiple layers of metal, the second metal layer adjacent the first metal layer with no other metal layers therebetween (fig. 4).
Re: claim 5, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein a portion of the inductive loop is curved (410).
Re: claim 7, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein the inductive loop includes multiple loops (fig. 4).
Re: claim 10, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of any one of claim 1, wherein different portions of the inductive loop are in different metal layers of the package substrate (FIG. 4).
Re: independent claim 16, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 an integrated circuit (IC) package comprising: a package substrate (120) including a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; a ball grid array (106) on the first surface of the package substrate; a semiconductor die (110) on the second surface of the package substrate; and a metal interconnect (112) defining a path for electrical signals to pass between the semiconductor die and a first ball of the ball grid array, the metal interconnect including an inductive loop (410).
Re: independent claim 20, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 an apparatus comprising: a package substrate (120) to support a semiconductor die (110) on a first surface of the package substrate, the package substrate including a ball grid array (106) on a second surface of the package substrate, the second surface opposite the first surface; and metal interconnects (112) to electrically couple the semiconductor die (110) to the ball grid array (106), the metal interconnects (112) including means for reducing an impedance discontinuity at a first ball of the ball grid array (410).
Re: claim 21, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the impedance discontinuity reducing means (410) is to define a path along which electrical signals are to be carried between the semiconductor die (110) and the first ball (106).
Re: claim 22, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the impedance discontinuity reducing means (410) is in a first metal layer (410) that is adjacent to a second metal layer, the second metal layer including a contact pad (210) associated with the first ball (106).
Re: claim 23, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the impedance discontinuity reducing means (410) includes means for reducing crosstalk (210) between the first ball (106) and a second ball (106) adjacent the first ball.
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.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2019/0131257) (hereinafter, “Kong”).
Re: claim 19, Kong discloses in figs. 1-4 the IC package of any one of claim 16, wherein the IC package includes embedded on-die memory.
Kong does not disclose wherein the IC package is a DDR memory package.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a DDR memory package as the IC package since DDR memory packages are common and well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiu et al. US 2023/0335510 teach a chip package including a redistribution layer with a plurality of loop and void structures.
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON BERNSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9011. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached on 571-272-1869. 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.
/ALLISON BERNSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 2/26/2026