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 without traverse of Group I, Species 2, Sub-species C, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on August 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Action on the merits is as follows:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,655 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,655 B2 in view of Yang et al. (Yang) (US 2018/0269181 A1).
In regards to claims 1-17, 12,051,655 B2 does not specifically disclose a protection layer, covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device.
Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses a protection layer (item 280), covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device (item 184a, 184b, paragraph 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious o one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yang for the purpose of protection.
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) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) in view of Yang et al. (Yang) (US 2018/0269181 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses a package structure (Figs 1, 3, 4), comprising: a die (item 336); an encapsulant (item 311), laterally encapsulating the die (item 336); a redistribution layer (RDL) structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338), disposed on the die (item 336) and the encapsulant (item 311); a passive device (item 356, paragraph 44), disposed on and electrically bonded to the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338); and a plurality of dummy items (items 326 plus 327), disposed on the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338) and laterally aside the passive device (item 356), wherein top surfaces of the dummy items (items 326 plus 327) are higher than a top surface of the passive device (item 356). See Fig. 3 and inverted Fig.3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
490
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheah does not specifically disclose a protection layer, covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device.
Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses a die (items 124, 124a or 124b); an encapsulant (item 282), laterally encapsulating the die (item 124a, 124b); a redistribution layer (RDL) structure (items 172 plus 176 plus 174, paragraph 37), disposed on the die (item 124a, 124b) and the encapsulant (item 282); a passive device (item 184a, 184b, paragraph 40), a protection layer (item 280), covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device (item 184a, 184b, paragraph 40).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious o one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yang for the purpose of protection.
In regards to claim 3, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338) comprises a redistribution layer (items 316 plus 318 plus 338 plus horizontal portions not labeled) penetrating through the encapsulant (item 311) and in physical contact with a conductive pad (shown but not labeled) of the die (item 336).
In regards to claim 4, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein the dummy items (items 326 plus 327, Figs. 2, 3, 4) are electrically insulated from the die (item 336).
In regards to claim 5, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein the dummy items (items 326 plus 327) have a dome-like shape.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) in view of Yang et al. (Yang) (US 2018/0269181 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above and further in view of Chiang (US 2020/0105638 A1) now US 10,832,985 B2).
In regards to claim 6, Cheah as modified by Yang does not specifically disclose wherein the die comprises: a substrate; a passivation layer disposed over the substrate; and a plurality of sensing regions extending from a top surface of the passivation layer to a device layer on the substrate.
Chiang (Figs. 3, 20 and associated text) discloses wherein the die (item 126) comprises:
a substrate (item 130); a passivation layer (item 136) disposed over the substrate (item 130); and
a plurality of sensing regions (items 126A-126C) extending from the top surface of the passivation layer (item 136) to a device layer (not labeled) on the substrate (item 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chiang for the purpose of having a sensor package.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) in view of Yang et al. (Yang) (US 2018/0269181 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above and further in view of Kang et al. (Kang) (US 2020/0144235 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Cheah as modified by Yang does not specifically disclose further comprising a filling layer, disposed to fill a space between the passive device and the RDL structure, and laterally surround a connector of the passive device.
Kang (Fig. Fig. 21 and associated text) discloses a filling layer (item 133) disposed to
fill a space between the passive device (items 125, 126) and the RDL structure (item 140 plus
11 plus 113), the filling layer (item 133) laterally surrounds a connector (item 185) of the
passive device (items 125, 126) and a conductive pillar (item 113) of the RDL structure (item
140 plus 11 plus 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kang for the purpose of protection and a mechanical bond.
In regards to claim 8, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) as modified by Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses and Kang (Fig. Fig. 21 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein a material of the protection layer (item 280, Yang) is the same as a material of the filling layer (item 133, Kang).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a protection layer and a filling layer made of the same material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 9, , Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) as modified by Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses and Kang (Fig. Fig. 21 and associated text) discloses wherein a material of the protection layer (item 280, Yang) is different form a material of the filling layer (item 133, Kang).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) as evidence by or view of Lin et al. (Lin) (US 10,157,888 B1).
In regards to claim 10, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses a package structure a package structure (Figs 1, 3, 4), comprising: a die (item 336); an encapsulant (item 311), laterally encapsulating the die (item 336); a redistribution layer (RDL) structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338), disposed on the die (item 336) and the encapsulant (item 311); a passive device (item 356, paragraph 44), disposed on and electrically bonded to the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338); and a plurality of dummy items (items 326 plus 327), disposed on the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338) and laterally aside the passive device (item 356), but does not specifically disclose wherein a width of each insulating dummy item (items 326 plus 327) gradually decreases from bottom to top.
As evidenced by Lin (Fig. 13), dummy items (item DP1) can have various shapes and sizes (col. 7, lines 32-52).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a dummy item that has a width that gradually decreases from bottom to top, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
In regards to claim 17, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein the RDL structure (items 310 or 310 plus 338) comprises a redistribution layer (items 316 plus 318 plus 338 plus horizontal portions not labeled) penetrating through the encapsulant (item 311) and in physical contact with a conductive pad (shown but not labeled) of the die (item 336).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) as evidence by or view of Lin et al. (Lin) (US 10,157,888 B1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (Yang) (US 2018/0269181 A1)
In regards to claim 11, Cheah as evidenced/modified by Lin does not specifically disclose further comprising a protection layer covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device.
Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses a protection layer (item 280), covering sidewalls and a top surface of the passive device (item 184a, 184b, paragraph 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious o one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yang for the purpose of protection.
In regards to claim 12, Cheah as evidenced/modified by Lin and Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein a material of the protection layer (item 280) is the same as a material of the encapsulant (item 282).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a protection layer and an encapsulant made of the same material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 13, Cheah as evidenced/modified by Lin and Yang (Fig. 13f, 14 and associated text and equivalent items) does not specifically disclose wherein a material of the protection layer (item 280) is different form a material of the encapsulant (item 282).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a protection layer and an encapsulant made of a different material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In regards to claim 15, Cheah (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and associated text and equivalent items) discloses wherein top surfaces of the dummy items (items 326 plus 327) are higher than a top surface of the passive device (item 356).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) as evidence by or view of Lin et al. (Lin) (US 10,157,888 B1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (Kang) (US 2020/0144235 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Cheah as evidenced/modified by Lin does not specifically disclose further comprising a filling layer, disposed to fill a space between the passive device and the RDL structure, and laterally surround a connector of the passive device.
Kang (Fig. Fig. 21 and associated text) discloses a filling layer (item 133) disposed to
fill a space between the passive device (items 125, 126) and the RDL structure (item 140 plus
11 plus 113), the filling layer (item 133) laterally surrounds a connector (item 185) of the
passive device (items 125, 126) and a conductive pillar (item 113) of the RDL structure (item
140 plus 11 plus 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kang for the purpose of protection and a mechanical bond.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheah et al. (Cheah) (US 2019/0311978 A1) as evidence by or view of Lin et al. (Lin) (US 10,157,888 B1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (Chu) (US 2021/0343638 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Cheah as evidenced/modified by Lin discloses wherein the encapsulant has a portion covering a front surface of the die, but does not specifically disclose the RDL structure comprises a polymer layer over the encapsulant and the die, and the polymer layer is in physical contact with a sidewall of the portion of the encapsulant.
Chu (Fig. 28 and associated text) discloses the RDL structure (items 246 plus 256 plus
262 plus 258) comprises a polymer layer (items 246 plus 262, paragraphs 35, 42) over the
encapsulant (item 242) and the die (item 102), and the polymer layer (items 246 plus 262) is in
contact with a sidewall of the portion of the encapsulant (item 242).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chu for the purpose of protection and an electrical connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights