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 claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 8/29/26 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Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/29/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/06/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US PGPub 2020/0090952, hereinafter referred to as “Yeh”).
Yeh discloses the semiconductor device substantially as claimed. See figures 1A-4, and corresponding text, where Yeh teaches, in claim 1, an electronic device, comprising: (figures 3 and 4; [0048-0068])
an electronic component (3) comprising a chip (21, 21’22) and a protective layer (28) disposed on an active surface of the chip (21, 21’, 22);
an encapsulation layer (25, 44) surrounding the electronic component (3); and
a circuit structure (20) contacting a first surface of the encapsulation layer (25, 44) and electrically connecting the electronic component (3), wherein the protective layer (28) has a second surface away from the active surface, and a first step between.
However, Yeh fails to explicitly teach, the first surface and the second surface is between 1-10μm.
Yeh teaches, eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the first surface and the second surface is between 1-10μm, in the device of Yeh, for the purpose of eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product. Furthermore, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Yeh teaches, in claim 2, wherein the circuit structure comprises a first conductive layer, a first conductive component disposed on the first conductive layer, and a first insulating layer disposed on the first conductive layer and the first conductive component, wherein a second step difference is between the insulating layer surface of the first insulating layer and the conductive component surface of the first conductive component (figures 3 and 4; [0048-0068]).
Yeh fails to explicitly teach, in claim 3, wherein the second step difference is between 1-15 μm.
Yeh teaches, eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the second step difference is between 1-15 μm, in the device of Yeh, for the purpose of eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product. Furthermore, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Yeh teaches, in claim 4, wherein the electronic device further comprises a connecting component that overlaps the first conductive component (figures 3 and 4; [0048-0068]).
Yeh fails to explicitly teaches, in claim 5, wherein the conductive component surface of the first conductive component comprises a surface protrusion and a surface depression, a first height difference is between a peak of the surface protrusion and a valley of the surface depression, and the first height difference is between 0.1-5 μm.
Yeh teaches, eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the conductive component surface of the first conductive component comprises a surface protrusion and a surface depression, a first height difference is between a peak of the surface protrusion and a valley of the surface depression, and the first height difference is between 0.1-5 μm, in the device of Yeh, for the purpose of eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product. Furthermore, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Yeh teaches, in claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the first insulating layer fills the surface depression of the conductive component surface (figures 3 and 4; [0048-0068]).
Yeh teaches, in claim 7, wherein an accommodation space is between the first conductive layer and the encapsulation layer, and at least a portion of the first insulating layer is filled into the accommodation space (figures 3 and 4; [0048-0068]).
Yeh fails to explicitly teach, in claim 8, wherein the accommodation space has a depth of 1-10 μm.
Yeh teaches, eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the accommodation space has a depth of 1-10 μm, in the device of Yeh, for the purpose of eliminating short circuit or circuit breakage and improving reliability of the package product. Furthermore, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 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 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights