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 .
Specification
The lengthy 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.
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 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,587,916 in view of Lee (TW 2020030847A).
Regarding claim 16 of the pending application, US Patent teaches a package structure, comprising:
providing an antenna substrate structure having at least one antenna element therein (see col. 18, lines 63-65);
molding the antenna substrate structure with a first encapsulant (see col. 18, lines 63-65);
forming a redistribution layer over the molded antenna substrate structure and the first encapsulant (see col. 18, lines 61-65. NOTE: claim 11 claims the encapsulated antenna substrate disposed over the first surface of RDL);
providing and disposing at least one passive device components on the redistribution layer (see col. 19, lines 3-5);
disposing the at least one passive device components to the redistribution layer (see col. 19, lines 3-5.); and
molding the passive device component with a second encapsulant (see col. 19, lines 3-5), wherein a molding span of the second encapsulant is smaller than a molding span of the first encapsulant, and a portion of the redistribution layer is exposed (see col. 19, lines 13-16).
Claim 16 does not explicitly teach there are a plural of passive device components; the step of bonding the passive device components to the redistribution layer; and wherein the passive device components are fully encapsulating the passive device components.
Lee teaches the same field of endeavor wherein the step of bonding a plurality of passive device components (170) to the redistribution layer (see fig. 9); and wherein the passive device components are fully encapsulating the passive device components (see fig. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include bonding the passive device components to the redistribution layer; and wherein the passive device components are fully encapsulating the passive device components as taught by Lee in the teaching of US Patent because the power can be supplied to the passive components from an optimal distance. Thus, it improve the signal and power characteristics of the package.
Although claim 16 of the pending application is a method claim, the process steps as claimed cannot be used to make another and materially different device and the device structure of US Patent can be made by another and materially different process step.
Regarding claim 17 of the pending application, US Patent Lee teaches all the limitations for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Lee teaches providing a semiconductor die (161/162) connected with the redistribution layer (140) beside the passive device components (170) before molding the passive device components with a second encapsulant, so that the second encapsulant fully covers the semiconductor die and the passive device components (see fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “an additional redistribution layer on the molded antenna substrate structure and the first encapsulant, disposing a semiconductor die on the additional redistribution layer, and molding the semiconductor die with a third encapsulant covering the semiconductor die and the additional redistribution layer, before forming the redistribution layer.” Claim 19 includes all the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “disposing a connector on the exposed redistribution layer and the connector is located outside of the second encapsulant.”
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of a method for forming a package structure, comprising: “molding the first die and the conductive pillars with a second encapsulant laterally wrapping the first die and the conductive pillars; and forming a second redistribution layer over the molded first die, the conductive pillars and the second encapsulant, wherein the first antenna element and the second antenna element are different types of antennae” in combination of all of the limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-9 include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of a method for forming a package structure, comprising: “molding the semiconductor die and the conductive pillars with a second encapsulant laterally wrapping the semiconductor die and the conductive pillars; and forming a second redistribution layer over the molded semiconductor die, the conductive pillars and the second encapsulant, wherein a polarization of radiation emitted by the first antenna element is perpendicular to a polarization of radiation emitted by the second antenna element” in combination of all of the limitations of claim 10. Claims 11-15 include all of the limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights