DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
For Examiner’s Interview fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html).
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
Independent: 1, 10 and 23.
Pending: 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 21-27.
Newly: 21-27.
Canceled: 6, 14, 16-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 23-27 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The original filed claims are drawn to semiconductor package and method of manufacturing a semiconductor package. The newly filed claims 23-27are drawn to the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product in this case this process of using as show in claim 23-27 can be using in different device including has multiple traces that has crosstalk with electromagnetic signals.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim[ 3 ] withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 15, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ball et al., US PG pub.20010009782 A1, cited in PTO-892 dated 4/22/2026.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Ball discloses an integrated circuit (24, fig. 2) that includes a first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) that conveys a signal; a ground layer (12, fig. 2) positioned on one side of the integrated circuit (24, fig. 2); and a sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) positioned directly below the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) and between the ground layer (12, fig. 2) and the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) to absorb electromagnetic signals emitted from the signal conveyed in the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2), wherein a length of the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is parallel to a length of the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 2, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: wherein the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) has the same dimensions as the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 7, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: wherein a length of the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is equal to a length of the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 8, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: wherein the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is a non-transmission trace.
Re: Claim 21, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: wherein the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) extends beneath the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) for an entire length of the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Independent Claim 10, Ball discloses providing an integrated circuit (24, fig. 2) that includes a first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) that conveys a signal; positioning a ground layer (12, fig. 2) on one side of the integrated circuit (24, fig. 2); and positioning a sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) between the ground layer (12, fig. 2) and the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) to absorb; electromagnetic signals emitted from the signal conveyed in the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2), the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) being oriented parallel to and having substantially the same length as the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 11, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: configuring the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) to have the same dimensions as the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 15, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: configuring a length of the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) to be equal to a length of the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Re: Claim 22, Ball disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Ball further discloses: positioning the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) directly below the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al., US PG pub.20010009782 A1;in view of Wittenberg et al., US PG pub. 20140160684 A1, cited in PTO-892 dated 4/22/2026.
Re: Claim 3, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: wherein the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is comprised of copper.
Wittenberg teaches conductive trace can be made of copper (¶0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include copper as a trace material since copper offers ideal balance of high electrical conductivity cost-effectiveness, ease of manufacturing and thermal performance.
Re: Claim 9, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: wherein the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is constructed during a copper plating phase.
Wittenberg teaches conductive trace can be made of copper (¶0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include copper as a trace material since copper offers ideal balance of high electrical conductivity cost-effectiveness, ease of manufacturing and thermal performance.
Re: Claim 12, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: wherein positioning the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) further comprising generating the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) during a copper plating phase.
Wittenberg teaches conductive trace can be made of copper (¶0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include copper as a trace material since copper offers ideal balance of high electrical conductivity cost-effectiveness, ease of manufacturing and thermal performance.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al., US PG pub.20010009782 A1.
Re: Claim 4, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: wherein the first trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2) is an aggressor trace and wherein the integrated circuit (24, fig. 2) further comprises a victim trace (24 in region 20, fig. 2) adjacent the aggressor trace (24 in region 16, fig. 2). However, Ball teaches the signal traces 24 have a parasitic noise which could be potential interpret as aggressor/victim pairs in region 16 and 20, since the function of which it would produce would be obvious since Ball teaches crosstalk which is a electromagnetic signal that switching on one trace, the aggressor, creates change electric and magnetic fields around it those fields couple into a nearby trace, the victim, in two way capacitive coupling come from the electric field between the traces and inductive coupling comes from the magnetic field linking the two current loops the coupled energy shows on the victim as unwanted noise voltage or current, which is the parasitic noise. In addition is has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ F. 2d 1647 (1987)
Re: Claim 5, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: wherein a thickness of the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) is equal to one half a thickness of the ground layer (12, fig. 2).
However, thickness range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ball traces to have a smaller thickness since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization the sensor device of the display device thereby improve the high-density integration.
Re: Claim 13, Ball discloses all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Ball is silent regarding: configuring a thickness of the sacrificial trace (22 in region 18, fig. 2) to be equal to about one half of a thickness of the ground layer (12, fig. 2).
However, thickness range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ball traces to have a smaller thickness since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization the sensor device of the display device thereby improve the high-density integration.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZ CHIU whose telephone number is 571-272-8656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00AM to 5:00PM (EST).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached on 571-270-3691. 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.
/TSZ K CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Tsz.Chiu@uspto.gov
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights