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 of group II, species II(b), claims 10-18, in the reply filed on July 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-9 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 27, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “324” has been used to designate both “through hole” and “hole”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “300”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Undefined acronyms/symbols, such as “PCB” (first occurrence: page 17, line 16). The examiner suggests that applicant spell out all the acronyms/symbols when using them for the first time in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: i) a comma should be inserted after “packaging” (claim 1, line 1); ii) inconsistent terminologies. “the through holes” should read “the one or more through holes” (claim 12). Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-14 and 18 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 claimed limitation of “a support”, as recited in claim 12, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a support substrate”, as recited in claim 11.
The claimed limitation of “a metal via”, as recited in claim 12, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a metal via”, as recited in claim 10.
The claimed limitation of “a vertical direction”, as recited in claim 12, line 5, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a vertical direction”, as recited in claim 12, line 4.
The claimed limitation of “the metal via”, as recited in claims 13 and 14, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a metal via”, as recited in claims 10 and/or 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the through hole” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “one or more through holes”, as recited in claim 12.
The claimed limitation of “1 to 2.2 µm”, as recited in claim 18, is unclear as to what measurement unit of the lower limitation applicant refers.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (217/0040265).
As for claim 1, Park et al. show in Figs. 10, 11A (or 11B, or 11C, or 11D), 23 and related text a fan-out packaging device 100G using wafer or panel level packaging comprising:
a fan-out packaging substrate 110/120/130 embedded with a die 120 and a preformer 110 including a metal via 113a;
a rear metal layer 132 formed on a rear surface of the fan-out packaging substrate and connected to the metal via; and
a re-distribution line structure 140/150 connected to the metal via at an active side of the fan-out packaging substrate ([0087], lines 4-8) and ground-connected to the rear metal layer ([0096] and [0146]), and a bump structure 170 connected to the re-distribution line structure.
Regarding the process limitations ("using wafer or panel level packaging"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 11, Park et al. show the preformer is formed by forming a metallization pattern on a support substrate or is formed by forming the metallization pattern on the support substrate and then dicing the metallization pattern into one or more fragments with a predetermined size (Fig. 23).
Regarding the process limitations ("formed by forming a metallization pattern on a support substrate or is formed by forming the metallization pattern on the support substrate and then dicing the metallization pattern into one or more fragments with a predetermined size"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 12, Park et al. show the preformer 110 comprises:
a support 11a;
one or more through holes (not shown) penetrating the support in a vertical direction; and
a metal via 113a configured to provide electrical connection in a vertical direction in the through holes (Fig. 11C (or 11D).
As for claim 13, Park et al. show the metal via is formed on an inner wall of the through hole by a plating process such that the metal via includes the through a hole or fills the through hole (Fig. 11A or 11B or 11C or 11D).
Regarding the process limitations ("formed … by a plating process"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 14, Park et al. show the preformer comprises a contact pad 112a/112b connected to the metal via and formed along a circumference of the through hole (Fig. 11A or 11B or 11C or 11D).
As for claim 15, Park et al. show one or more preformers including the preformer are symmetrical based on the die (Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 10-17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2017/0263522).
As for claim 1, Kim et al. show in Figs. 2-3 and related text a fan-out packaging 100A device using wafer or panel level packaging comprising:
a fan-out packaging substrate 110/120/130/113/114/115/116 embedded with a die and a preformer 110/113/114/115/116 including a metal via 115/116;
a rear metal layer 140 formed on a rear surface of the fan-out packaging substrate and connected to the metal via; and
a re-distribution line structure 150/160 connected to the metal via at an active side of the fan-out packaging substrate and ground-connected to the rear metal layer ([0061]-[0062]), and a bump structure 190 connected to the re-distribution line structure.
Regarding the process limitations ("using wafer or panel level packaging"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 11, Kim et al. show the preformer is formed by forming a metallization pattern on a support substrate or is formed by forming the metallization pattern on the support substrate and then dicing the metallization pattern into one or more fragments with a predetermined size (Fig. 3).
Regarding the process limitations ("formed by forming a metallization pattern on a support substrate or is formed by forming the metallization pattern on the support substrate and then dicing the metallization pattern into one or more fragments with a predetermined size"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 12, Kim et al. show the preformer comprises:
a support 110;
one or more through holes 110X/115H penetrating the support in a vertical direction; and
a metal via 115/116 configured to provide electrical connection in a vertical direction in the through holes (Fig. 3).
As for claim 13, Kim et al. show the metal via is formed on an inner wall of the through hole 110X by a plating process such that the metal via includes the through a hole or fills the through hole (Fig. 3).
Regarding the process limitations ("formed … by a plating process"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 14, Kim et al. show the preformer comprises a contact pad 113/114 connected to the metal via and formed along a circumference of the through hole (Fig. 3).
As for claim 15, Kim et al. show one or more preformers including the preformer are symmetrical based on the die (Fig. 2).
As for claim 16, Kim et al. show the rear metal layer comprises a copper (Cu) material ([0083]).
As for claim 17, Kim et al. show the rear metal layer is formed as a copper layer on a titanium (Ti) or titanium tungsten (TiW) layer ([0083]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (217/0040265) in view of Kim et al. (2017/0263522).
As for claims 16 and 17, Park et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 10 above, except the rear metal layer comprises a copper (Cu) material (claim 16); and the rear metal layer is formed as a copper layer on a titanium (Ti) or titanium tungsten (TiW) layer (claim 17).
Kim et al. teach in Fig. 3 and related text:
As for claim 16, the rear metal layer comprises a copper (Cu) material ([0083]).
As for claim 17, the rear metal layer is formed as a copper layer on a titanium (Ti) or titanium tungsten (TiW) layer ([0083]).
Park et al. and Kim et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a fan-out packaging device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Park et al. with the specified feature(s) of Kim et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rear metal layer compring a copper (Cu) material; and the rear metal layer being formed as a copper layer on a titanium (Ti) or titanium tungsten (TiW) layer, as taught by Kim et al., in Park et al.'s device, in order to lower resistance, reduce production costs and increase speed of the device.
Claim(s) 18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (217/0040265) or Kim et al. (2017/0263522).
Park et al. or Kim et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 10 above, except the rear metal layer has a thickness of 1 to 2.2 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the rear metal layer having a thickness of 1 to 2.2 µm, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights