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 with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 5, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brassfield et al, US 20200211760.
Regarding claim 1, Brassfield discloses : A semiconductor package, comprising: a substrate(Fig. 6, #210); a second semiconductor package coupled to the substrate(#204), the second semiconductor package comprising a semiconductor die including first metal contacts coupled to second metal contacts of the second semiconductor package(#204 may include terminals on substrate [0026]); a magnetic mold compound covering the substrate and the second semiconductor package(Fig. 5, #502 fully encapsulated #500 [0036]), the magnetic mold compound contacting the second metal contacts(#502 fills a volume from #210 to #508 [0036]); and an inductor coil having first and second terminals coupled to the substrate(Fig. 4a, #402 with #410 and #412 connected to 210), the second semiconductor package in between the first and second terminals of the inductor coil(#204 between #304).
Regarding claim 3, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes multiple layers of metal interconnected by vertical vias and further includes build-up film contacting the multiple layers of metal and the vertical vias, and wherein the substrate is not a printed circuit board(#210 may be a multi-layer laminate separated by insulator[0022, 0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor package is an inductor module(module using discrete inductors [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the magnetic mold compound includes iron ions at a packing fraction ranging from 70% to 95%(Ferromagnetic material may be 85% iron [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1, further comprising a passive component coupled to the substrate(passive components may be on substrate [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the magnetic mold compound operates as a magnetic core for the inductor coil(Magnetic core has at least one mold flow for inductor [0038]).
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) 2, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760, in view of Hou et al, US 20200211959.
Regarding claim 2, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1.
Brassfield does not disclose : further comprising a non-magnetic mold compound covering the second semiconductor package.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : further comprising a non-magnetic mold compound covering the second semiconductor package(Fig. 4, #430 covering #402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Hou to Brassfield to have a non-magnetic mold covering the second semiconductor package to simplify an assembly process (Hou [0001-0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1.
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein the first metal contacts have a first pitch ranging from 100 microns to 400 microns.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : wherein the first metal contacts have a first pitch ranging from 100 microns to 400 microns(Fig. 1, #d2 may be 180 micrometers [0024]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a metal contact with a pitch between 100 to 400 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1.
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein consecutive ones of the second metal contacts are spaced apart by at least 0.2 mm and are at least 0.2 mm wide.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : wherein consecutive ones of the second metal contacts are spaced apart by at least 0.2 mm and are at least 0.2 mm wide(Fig. 1, #d2 may be 180mm and #d3 may be 250mm [0024]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a metal contact metal contacts spaced apart at least 0.2 mm and are at least 0.2 mm wide, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760, in view of Hachiya, US 20210035730.
Regarding claim 4, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1.
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein each of the first and second terminals is twisted in three-dimensional space.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hachiya teaches : wherein each of the first and second terminals is twisted in three-dimensional space(Fig. 1, #20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Hachiya to Brassfield to twist terminals of an inductor to reduce the size of an inductor (Hachiya [0052]).
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760, in view of Lu et al, US 20200035615.
Regarding claim 8, Brassfield discloses : The semiconductor package of claim 1.
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein a second pitch of the second metal contacts has a minimum defined by one or more properties of the magnetic mold compound selected from the group consisting of: metal ion conductivity, metal ion mobility, metal ion density, and metal ion distribution.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches : wherein a second pitch of the second metal contacts has a minimum defined by one or more properties of the magnetic mold compound selected from the group consisting of: metal ion conductivity, metal ion mobility, metal ion density, and metal ion distribution(Magnetic mold with iron particles [0013] placed adjacent to conductors become electrically conductive and would short conductors. Conductivity is governed by particle density/distribution which directly influences design parameters such as spacing of conductors [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Lu to Brassfield to configure the second pitch of the second metal contacts, which are contacted by a magnetic mold material to have a minimum defined by metal-ion conductivity, density and distribution of Lu to prevent leakage and shorting between adjacent leads(Lu [0016-0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Brassfield discloses : A semiconductor package, comprising: a substrate(Fig. 6, #210); a capacitor coupled to the substrate(capacitors may be attached to substrate [0025]); a second semiconductor package coupled to the substrate and including a semiconductor die(#204 [0026]), the semiconductor die including first metal contacts having a first pitch(contacts shown below #204), the second semiconductor package including second metal contacts having a second pitch(second contacts shown in #210); and a magnetic mold compound covering the substrate and the second semiconductor package and contacting the second metal contacts(Fig. 5, #502 fully encasing #500 [0036]).
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein the second pitch prevents leakage and shorting that would otherwise occur between consecutive ones of the second metal contacts by way of one or more metal ions in the magnetic mold compound, and wherein the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches : wherein the second pitch prevents leakage and shorting that would otherwise occur between consecutive ones of the second metal contacts by way of one or more metal ions in the magnetic mold compound, and wherein the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch(Magnetic mold with iron particles [0013] placed adjacent to conductors become electrically conductive and would short conductors. Conductivity is governed by particle density/distribution which directly influences design parameters such as spacing of conductors [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Lu to Brassfield to configure the second pitch of the second metal contacts, which are contacted by a magnetic mold material to have a minimum defined by metal-ion conductivity, density and distribution of Lu to prevent leakage and shorting between adjacent leads(Lu [0016-0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Brassfield as modified by Lu discloses : The package of claim 12.
Brassfield teaches : wherein the substrate comprises a build-up film and is not a printed circuit board. (#210 may be a multi-layer laminate separated by insulator[0022, 0037]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760, in view of Lu et al, US 20200035615, in further view of Hachiya, US 20210035730.
Regarding claim 13, Brassfield as modified by Lu discloses : The package of claim 12.
Brassfield teaches : further comprising an inductor coupled to the substrate and the first and second terminals on opposing sides of the second semiconductor package(Fig. 4a, #402 with #410 and #412 connected to 210 with #204 between #304).
Brassfield as modified by Lu does not disclose : having first and second terminals twisting in three-dimensional space as they extend from a coil portion of the inductor toward the substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hachiya teaches : having first and second terminals twisting in three-dimensional space as they extend from a coil portion of the inductor toward the substrate(Fig. 1, #20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Hachiya to Brassfield to twist terminals of an inductor to reduce the size of an inductor (Hachiya [0052]).
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brassfield et al, US 20200211760, in view of Lu et al, US 20200035615, in further view of Hou et al, US 20200211959.
Regarding claim 14, Brassfield as modified by Lu discloses : The package of claim 12.
Brassfield does not disclose : wherein the second semiconductor package includes a non-magnetic mold compound.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : wherein the second semiconductor package includes a non-magnetic mold compound(Fig. 4, #430 covering #402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Hou to Brassfield to have a non-magnetic mold covering the second semiconductor package to simplify an assembly process (Hou [0001-0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Brassfield as modified by Lu discloses : The package of claim 12.
Brassfield as modified by Lu does not disclose : wherein the first pitch ranges from 100 microns to 400 microns.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : (Fig. 1, #d2 may be 180 micrometers [0024]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a metal contact with a pitch between 100 to 400 microns, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Brassfield as modified by Lu discloses : The package of claim 12.
Brassfield as modified by Lu does not disclose : wherein the second metal contacts are spaced apart by at least 0.2 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches : wherein the second metal contacts are spaced apart by at least 0.2 mm(Fig. 1, #d2 may be 180mm and #d3 may be 250mm [0024]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a metal contact metal contacts spaced apart at least 0.2 mm and are at least 0.2 mm wide, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210343662 : Integrated circuit .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PST.
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, CHAD DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights