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 .
This Office Action is in response to the election filed August 17, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-29 in the reply filed on August 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
of the method language in line 1; and
“comprising” should have been including appearing twice in line 4 and once in line 5.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: should “50% to 5%” be 50% to 95% in line 9?. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 10-16, 19-25 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Izumi et al. (US 20013/0002124 A1) in view of Theuss et al. (US 2008/025194 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Izumi et al. teach a device 10 comprising: a die 4; and a mold structure 6 proximate the die 4, the mold structure 6 comprising: a base material 63; and particles 62 comprising an electrically insulating coating 622, wherein the particles 62 are dispersed in the base material 63 (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 19, Izumi et al. teach a system comprising: a die carrier 2; a die 4 mounted on the die carrier 2; and a mold structure 6 proximate the die 4, the mold structure 6 comprising: a base material 63; particles 62 comprising an electrically insulating coating 622, the particles 62 dispersed in the base material 63 (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
However, Izumi et al. fail to teach the particles being shield particles in claims 10 and 19 and the silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles dispersed in the base material in claim 19.
In regard to claims 10 and 19, Theuss et al. teach shielding particles 130 in claim 10 (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0085]-[0088]); and Theuss et al. teach silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles dispersed in the base material 120 in claim 19 (Figure 6, pages 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0047] and [0085]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Izumi et al. with the device having shielding particles and silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles dispersed in the base material as taught by Theuss et al. to allow proper curing (page 6, paragraph [0086]).
In regard to claim 11, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising at least one of boron nitride (BN), bismuth (Bi), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), tantalum nitride (TaN), tungsten nitride (W3N2), tin oxide (SnO2), copper (I) oxide (Cu2O), or copper (II) oxide (CuO) (Figure 6, pages 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0041] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 12, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising a material from at least one of the Cobalt oxide family, the Nickel oxide family, the Neodymium oxide family, or the Iron oxide family (Figure 6, pages 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0041] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 13, Izumi et al. teach the electrically insulating coating 622 comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 14, Izumi et al. teach the base material 63 comprising a material selected from the group consisting of polymer, silicone, polyurethane, chloroprene, butyl, polybutadiene, neoprene, natural rubber, isoprene, resin, and epoxy (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 15, Theuss et al. teach the mold structure 120/130 comprises silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles (Figure 6, pages 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0047] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 16, Theuss et al. teach particles in the mold structure 120/130 comprising a percentage of shielding particles and a percentage of silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles (Figure 6, pages 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0047] and [0085]-[0088]). In regard to the percentages of the shielding particles and the SiO2 filler particles, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claim 20, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising at least one of boron nitride (BN), bismuth (Bi), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), tantalum nitride (TaN), tungsten nitride (W3N2), tin oxide (SnO2), copper (I) oxide (Cu2O), and[e[o]] copper (II) oxide (CuO), wherein particles in the mold structure 120/130 comprise a percentage of shielding particles 130 and a percentage of silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041], [0047] and [0085]-[0088]). In regard to the percentages of the shielding particles and the SiO2 filler particles, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claim 20, Izumi et al. teach the electrically insulating coating 622 comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2),wherein the base material 63 comprising polymer, silicone, polyurethane, chloroprene, butyl, polybutadiene, neoprene, natural rubber, isoprene, resin, or epoxy (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 21, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising at least one of boron nitride (BN), bismuth (Bi), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), tantalum nitride (TaN), tungsten nitride (W3N2), tin oxide (SnO2), copper (I) oxide (Cu2O), or copper (II) oxide (CuO) (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 22, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising a material from at least one of the Cobalt oxide family, the Nickel oxide family, the Neodymium oxide family, or the Iron oxide family (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 23, Izumi et al. teach the electrically insulating coating 622 comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 24, Izumi et al. teach the base material 63 selected from the group consisting of polymer, silicone, polyurethane, chloroprene, butyl, polybutadiene, neoprene, natural rubber, isoprene, resin, and epoxy (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 25, Theuss et al. teach particles in the mold structure 120-130 comprising a percentage of the shielding particles 130 and a percentage of the silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041], [0047] and [0085]-[0088]). In regard to the percentages of the shielding particles and the SiO2 filler particles, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claim 28, Theuss et al. teach the shielding particles 130 comprising at least one of boron nitride (BN), bismuth (Bi), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), tantalum nitride (TaN), tungsten nitride (W3N2), tin oxide (SnO2), copper (I) oxide (Cu2O), or copper (II) oxide (CuO), and wherein the shielding particles 130 comprise a material from at least one of the Cobalt oxide family, the Nickel oxide family, the Neodymium oxide family, or the Iron oxide family (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041] and [0085]-[0088]).
In regard to claim 28, Izumi et al. teach the electrically insulating coating 622 comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1, pages 2-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0055]).
In regard to claim 29, Theuss et al. teach particles in the mold structure 120/130 comprising a percentage of the shielding particles and a percentage of the silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles (Figure 6, pages 5-6, paragraphs [0041], [0047] and [0085]-[0088]). In regard to the percentages of the shielding particles and the SiO2 filler particles, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 17 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (US 20013/0002124 A1) and Theuss et al. (US 2008/025194 A1) as applied to claims 10-16, 19-25 and 28-29 above, and further in view of Basin et al. (US 7,847,302 B2).
Izumi et al. and Theuss et al. teach all mention in the rejection above.
However, Izumi et al. and Theuss et al. fail to teach an encapsulant at least partially encapsulating the die, wherein the mold structure is proximate the encapsulant.
Basin et al. teach an encapsulant 26 at least partially encapsulating the die 50, wherein the mold structure 52/53/54 is proximate the encapsulant 26 (Figure 10, columns 3-6, lines 57-67, 1-67, 1-67 and 1-55, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Izumi et al. and the device having shielding particles and silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles dispersed in the base material as taught by Theuss et al. with the device having an encapsulant at least partially encapsulating the die, wherein the mold structure is proximate the encapsulant as taught by Basin et al. to form an encapsulant over a chip with well-defined dimensions (column 2, lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (US 20013/0002124 A1) and Theuss et al. (US 2008/025194 A1) as applied to claims 10-16, 19-25 and 28-29 above, and further in view of Cabalu et al. (US 2012/0217865 A1).
Izumi et al. and Theuss et al. teach all mention in the rejection above.
However, Izumi et al. and Theuss et al. fail to teach the mold structure comprising first and second shielding layers, wherein the first and second shielding layers comprise different concentrations of shielding particles.
Cabalu et al. teach a mold structure 110/112/120/122 comprising first and second shielding layers 110/112 and 120/122, wherein the first and second shielding layers 110/112 and 120/122 comprise different concentrations of shielding particles 112/122 (Figures 1A-1D, pages 3-4, paragraphs [0029]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device structure as taught by Izumi et al. and the device having shielding particles and silicon dioxide (SiO2) filler particles dispersed in the base material as taught by Theuss et al. with the device having a mold structure comprising first and second shielding layers, wherein the first and second shielding layers comprise different concentrations of shielding particles as taught by Cabalu et al. to obtain the desired device characteristics (pages 1-2, paragraphs [0008]-[0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to devices:
Check et al. (US 2023/0083154 A1) Ikeda et al. (US 2002/0036267 A1)
Sekiguchi et al. (JP 2009267039 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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.
IMS
September 22, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights