DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received July 13, 2026. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending.
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 without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on July 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 23, and the claims that depend therefrom are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recitation, “a releasable adhesive layer being response to the radiation”, renders the claim indefinite. Logically and grammatically speaking, this phrase is confusing, as it is unclear as to what is happening in “response to the radiation”. Where “response” means “reaction to a specific stimulus”. As the only portion left in the phrase is “a releasable adhesive layer”, then something within that portion is the “response”. So the “adhesive layer” is “releasable”, however as is currently written, “releasable adhesive layer” is a characteristic of the adhesive layer which is a label, and not an active verb in the phrase. So in effect, the confusion is in that the phrase is, “noun with characteristic being reaction to the stimulus”. It is suggested that some language, which conforms to the disclosure, that captures the content more clearly such as, “a releasable adhesive layer being releasable in response to exposure to radiation”.
Since this is a structure claim, the act of the release due to radiation must be interpreted through the “product-by-process” frame work (see below), which is to capture physical outcome of the adhesive being releasable, which as it is understood, means that the adhesive contains some additives (see ¶ 0034, “the releasable adhesive layer 432 further includes additive(s) or substance(s) which have certain laser (or thermal) absorbance, so that the releasable adhesive layer 432 may be disintegrated by radiation (or heat) during the de-bonding process”) which is reactive to laser radiation, to heat up and de-bond more quickly than a typical adhesive without the filler. This is the only extent to which the disclosure explains what makes the adhesive layer, “releasable”.
The limitation of “a releasable adhesive layer being response to the radiation” is considered to be a process limitation, and since the current claim is directed to a device structure, this limitation is considered a “product by process” feature, wherein the claim is directed to the product, and no matter how the structure is actually made, it is the final product which must be determined in a claim directed to an product, and not the patentability of the process. MPEP 2113, I. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant discloses in Fig. 1A and 1E, a package assembly, comprising:
a device package (10) comprising an encapsulated die (110) and an interposer (200) disposed below the encapsulated die (200 below 110);
a package substrate (300) disposed below the device package (300 below 10) and electrically coupled to the encapsulated die through the interposer (electrical connections shown coupling 300 to 110 through 200); and
a support structure (40) disposed on the package substrate (on 300),
the device package (10) being housed in a cavity (space formed from features of 40 on 300) formed by the support structure (on 300), and
the support structure (40) comprising:
a lid portion (433) made of a material transparent to a radiation (¶ 0037, glass or polymeric);
a ring portion (431, ¶ 0033) between the lid portion (433) and the package substrate (300); and
a releasable adhesive layer (432, ¶ 0033, where the 432 material has additives with laser absorbance, ¶ 0034) being response to the radiation (discussed in ¶ 0033).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0068756).
PNG
media_image3.png
574
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of Nishida discloses in Figs. 1 and 2 (provided above), a package assembly (¶ 0045, “As shown in FIGS. 1 to 4, a semiconductor device 1A according to the first embodiment of the present technology includes a package body 2 that includes a semiconductor chip 10 …”), comprising:
a package substrate (“circuit board 3”, ¶ 0045);
a device package (Nishida does not disclose a “device package”, but for purposes of this rejection, the “semiconductor chip 10”, ¶ 0045, will be the component placeholder that will be modified in a subsequent combination rejection as detailed below.) disposed on a side of the package substrate and electrically coupled to the package substrate (10 on top side of and clearly electrically coupled to 10, by way of bond wires between chip 10’s pads to circuit board 3’s pads); and
a support structure (The combination of features of “frame 6”, ¶ 0046, and “cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046, hereinafter referred to as ‘SUP’) coupled to the side of the package substrate (SUP coupled to top surface of 3) to accommodate the device package therein (10 fits in a cavity created by internal surfaces of 3, 6 and 7), and
the support structure (SUP) comprising:
a lid portion (“cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046) comprising a transparent material (“The cover plate 7 is made of, for example, transparent glass that transmits light”, ¶ 0052),
wherein a first space (The interpreted “first space” is between lower surface of 7 and upper surface of 10, where “cavity 8”, ¶ 0053, label is located in Fig. 2) is between the lid portion (7) and the device package (3); and
a ring portion (“frame 6”, ¶ 0046) vertically between the lid portion and the package substrate (6 vertically between 7 and 3, in Fig. 2),
wherein a second space (The interpreted “second space” is between vertical sidewalls of 6 and 10, which is a portion of the cavity 8) is between the ring portion (6) and the device package (10) and is in spatial communication with the first space (both identified spaces are directly in “spatial communication” as can be clearly seen in Fig. 2).
Nishida’s “semiconductor chip 10”, ¶ 0045, clearly does not satisfy the claim limitation of “device package”, since the chip itself is not “packaged”, however it is a “device”.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jang discloses in Fig. 2, the use of a “device package”, which includes semiconductor devices (“a first semiconductor chip 310, a second semiconductor chip 320”, ¶ 0022) connected to an interposer (“interposer 200”, ¶ 0022) and are encapsulated (“molding member 400”, ¶ 0022). It is noted that Nishida’s 10 is wire bonded to 3, however it is well known to interchangeably use wire bond and ball grid array attachments, and as the attachment arrangement is not claimed, this has not been addressed in this rejection. Both Nishida and Jang provide for electrical connection between the equivalent “device package” and the “package substrate”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of a, “device package”, as disclosed by Jang in the system of Nishida, for the purpose of making modular components that allow for flexibility in the use of packaging arrangements, and would further add mechanical protection to the chips during the fabrication of the final packaging around the chips, thus potentially improving the working product yield. MPEP 2143, I., (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 14, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0068756) in view of Do et al. (US 2015/0001707).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of Nishida et al. disclose the package assembly of claim 13, and Nishida does disclose, wherein the support structure (SUP) further comprises a releasable adhesive layer (“Epoxy resin materials, for example, are used as the adhesive materials … 9b”, ¶ 0052. Nishida does not discuss the adhesive material’s quality of being “releasable”, which will be addressed in the combination rejection below.) attached to the lid portion and the ring portion (9b attached to both of 7 and 6, “frame 6”, ¶ 0046, and “cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046, “adhesive material 9b”, ¶ 0051).
Nishida does not specify that the “adhesive layer” is “releasable”, and thus does not explicitly teach, “a releasable adhesive layer”.
Do discloses the use of “releasable adhesive layer” by showing an epoxy based polymer which can be heated to allow for debonding, see ¶ 0050, “Penetrable adhesive layer 178 is a thermal release film material that loses adhesion upon being heated at elevated temperatures and can be easily removed from active surface 130 during a debonding process. Penetrable adhesive layer 178 reduces damage imposed on the active surface 130 and protects sensor area 131 and active surface 130 of semiconductor die 124. In some embodiments, penetrable adhesive layer 178 can be single or multi-layer polymer, such as b-staged curable epoxy resin,”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of a, “a releasable adhesive layer”, as disclosed by Do in the system of Nishida, for the purpose of utilizing an adhesive which can allow for re-work of a package to reuse or allow for further adjustments to the internal “device package” and/or the overall package. MPEP 2143, I., (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of Nishida et al. disclose the package assembly of claim 13, and Nishida discloses in Figs. 1 and 2, wherein the support structure (SUP, including 6 and 7) further comprises a releasable adhesive layer (“Epoxy resin materials, for example, are used as the adhesive materials … 9b”, ¶ 0052. Nishida does not discuss the adhesive material’s quality of being “releasable”, which will be addressed in the combination rejection below.), the ring portion (“frame 6”, ¶ 0046) comprises an end facing the lid portion (top surface of 6, faces “cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046), and the end of the ring portion is wrapped around by the releasable adhesive layer (“adhesive material 9b”, ¶ 0051 is formed between 6 and 7, and the teachings of Nishida only show 9b between 6 and 7, without any break in coverage.).
Nishida does not specify that the “adhesive layer” is “releasable”, and thus does not explicitly teach, “a releasable adhesive layer”.
Do discloses the use of “releasable adhesive layer” by showing an epoxy based polymer which can be heated to allow for debonding, see ¶ 0050, “Penetrable adhesive layer 178 is a thermal release film material that loses adhesion upon being heated at elevated temperatures and can be easily removed from active surface 130 during a debonding process. Penetrable adhesive layer 178 reduces damage imposed on the active surface 130 and protects sensor area 131 and active surface 130 of semiconductor die 124. In some embodiments, penetrable adhesive layer 178 can be single or multi-layer polymer, such as b-staged curable epoxy resin,”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of a, “a releasable adhesive layer”, as disclosed by Do in the system of Nishida, for the purpose of utilizing an adhesive which can allow for re-work of a package to reuse or allow for further adjustments to the internal “device package” and/or the overall package. MPEP 2143, I., (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
574
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of Nishida discloses in Figs. 1 and 2 (provided above), a package assembly (¶ 0045, “As shown in FIGS. 1 to 4, a semiconductor device 1A according to the first embodiment of the present technology includes a package body 2 that includes a semiconductor chip 10 …”), comprising:
a device package (Nishida does not disclose a “device package”, but for purposes of this rejection, the “semiconductor chip 10”, ¶ 0045, will be the component placeholder that will be modified in a subsequent combination rejection as detailed below.) comprising a first side (top side of 10) and a second side opposite to the first side (bottom side of 10);
a package substrate (“circuit board 3”, ¶ 0045) coupled to the second side of the device package (3 couples to the bottom side of 10); and
a support structure (The combination of features of “frame 6”, ¶ 0046, and “cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046, “adhesive material 9b”, ¶ 0051, hereinafter referred to as ‘SUP’) disposed on the package substrate (on 3) and accommodating the device package therein (10 fits in a cavity created by internal surfaces of 3, 6, 7, 9b), and the support structure comprising:
a lid portion (“cover plate 7”, ¶ 0046) made of a transparent material (“The cover plate 7 is made of, for example, transparent glass that transmits light”, ¶ 0052) and disposed above the first side of the device package (above top surface of 10);
a ring portion (“frame 6”, ¶ 0046) attached to the package substrate (6 attached to 3) and laterally surrounding the device package (6 surrounds 10, as can be seen in Fig. 1); and
a releasable adhesive layer (“Epoxy resin materials, for example, are used as the adhesive materials … 9b”, ¶ 0052. Nishida does not discuss the adhesive material’s quality of being “releasable”, which will be addressed in the combination rejection below.) disposed between the lid portion and the ring portion (9b between 7 and 6).
First, Nishida’s “semiconductor chip 10”, ¶ 0045, clearly does not satisfy the claim limitation of “device package”, since the chip itself is not “packaged”, however it is a “device”.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jang discloses in Fig. 2, the use of a “device package”, which includes semiconductor devices (“a first semiconductor chip 310, a second semiconductor chip 320”, ¶ 0022) connected to an interposer (“interposer 200”, ¶ 0022) and are encapsulated (“molding member 400”, ¶ 0022). It is noted that Nishida’s 10 is wire bonded to 3, however it is well known to interchangeably use wire bond and ball grid array attachments, and as the attachment arrangement is not claimed, this has not been addressed in this rejection. Both Nishida and Jang provide for electrical connection between the equivalent “device package” and the “package substrate”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of a, “device package”, as disclosed by Jang in the system of Nishida, for the purpose of making modular components that allow for flexibility in the use of packaging arrangements, and would further add mechanical protection to the chips during the fabrication of the final packaging around the chips, thus potentially improving the working product yield. MPEP 2143, I., (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Second, Nishida does not specify that the “adhesive layer” is “releasable”, and thus does not explicitly teach, “a releasable adhesive layer”.
Do discloses the use of “releasable adhesive layer” by showing an epoxy based polymer which can be heated to allow for debonding, see ¶ 0050, “Penetrable adhesive layer 178 is a thermal release film material that loses adhesion upon being heated at elevated temperatures and can be easily removed from active surface 130 during a debonding process. Penetrable adhesive layer 178 reduces damage imposed on the active surface 130 and protects sensor area 131 and active surface 130 of semiconductor die 124. In some embodiments, penetrable adhesive layer 178 can be single or multi-layer polymer, such as b-staged curable epoxy resin,”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of a, “a releasable adhesive layer”, as disclosed by Do in the system of Nishida, for the purpose of utilizing an adhesive which can allow for re-work of a package to reuse or allow for further adjustments to the internal “device package” and/or the overall package. MPEP 2143, I., (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of Nishida et al. disclose the package assembly of claim 21, wherein an air gap (Nishida Fig. 2, “The cavity 8 is filled with air or inert gas, for example.”, ¶ 0053) separates the first side of the device package (Nishida, top of 10, Fig. 2) from the lid portion (Nishida, lower surface of 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are potentially allowable, subject to overcoming the 112 rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) discloses in Figs. 1 and 2, a package assembly, but fails to disclose the specific characteristic recited in the claims of the instant invention e.g. the combination of claimed features of device package of an encapsulated die and interposer, package substrate, support structure of a lid, ring and adhesive, a cavity, and their relative orientation to each other, in combination with the claimed features of,
“a lid portion made of a material transparent to a radiation;
…
a releasable adhesive layer being response to the radiation.”
Claims 15, 17 and 23 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. Claim 23 is subject to the 112b rejection as well, so must address the issue prior to becoming fully objected to for containing allowable content.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) disclose the package assembly of claim 14, but Nishida does not disclose the use of an adhesive layer that is releasable due to radiation that passes through the transparent lid, “wherein the transparent material of the lid portion allows a radiation to pass through the lid portion and irradiate the releasable adhesive layer.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) disclose the package assembly of claim 13, but Nishida does not disclose the use of an adhesive layer that is releasable due to radiation that passes through the transparent lid with further protrusion of releasable adhesive layer, “wherein the support structure further comprises a releasable adhesive layer attached to the lid portion and the ring portion, releasable adhesive layer comprises an inner protrusion extending laterally beyond an inner sidewall of the ring portion and an outer protrusion extending laterally beyond an outer sidewall of the ring portion.”
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of Nishida et al. (US 2025/0254796) disclose the package assembly of claim 21, but Nishida does not disclose the use of an adhesive layer that is releasable due to radiation that passes through the transparent lid, “wherein the releasable adhesive layer is response to a radiation, and the transparent material of the lid portion allows the radiation to pass through the lid portion and irradiate the releasable adhesive layer.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eduardo A Rodela whose telephone number is (571)272-8797. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5:00pm ET.
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, Yara B Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/EDUARDO A RODELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights