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 .
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, 5-6, 9-11, 16 and 21-23 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. [US11646290] in view of Huang et al. [CN209641819U].
Chun discloses Chun show and disclose a system-in-package module comprising: a board (102, fig. 4) having a top surface; an integrated circuit (104, fig. 8) attached to a first plurality of contacts (116 and 116a, fig. 8) on the top surface of the board; a first vertical interconnect pin (882, fig. 8) connected to a first contact on the top surface of the board; a second vertical interconnect pin (884, fig. 8) connected to a second contact on the top surface of the board; an encapsulation (138, fig. 8) positioned on the top surface of the board, the encapsulation over the integrated circuit and at least substantially around the first vertical interconnect pin and the second vertical interconnect pin (fig. 8); and an antenna (878, fig. 8) on the top surface of the encapsulation, such that the encapsulation is between the antenna and the top surface of the board (fig. 8), the antenna connected to the first vertical interconnect pin and the second vertical interconnect pin (fig. 8); Chun discloses everything claimed except the encapsulation having a curved top surface. Huang et al. disclose an electronic device (10) having a curved casing portion (figure 2) including an antenna (112) mounted with the housing portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the antenna on a curved surface for the purpose of improving the appearance, feel and quality of the device as suggested by Huang et al. (see background).
Regarding claim 5, Chun et al. disclose the system-in-package module wherein the integrated circuit being a wireless transceiver (Electronic component 104, sometimes called a transceiver (Xcvr) chip, is capable of generating and/or receiving electromagnetic signals, e.g., radio frequency (RF) signals, [col. 3, line 2]).
Regarding claim 6, Chun et al. disclose the system-in-package module being a printed circuit board printed circuit board (102, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Chun et al. show and disclose the system-in-package module board comprising a conducive path (fig. 8) connecting a contact (116A, fig. 8) of the integrated circuit to the first vertical interconnect pin (882, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Chun et al. show and disclose the system-in-package module wherein the antenna is formed by physical vapor deposition (Examiner’s Notes: with respect to “is formed by physical vapor deposition”, which is a product-by-process limitation. The process limitation, in claim 10, does not generate the patentability in a claim drawn to structure or device. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.) and includes a low-frequency shielding layer (shield layer 864, fig. 8; [col. 13, line 60)).
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 21, Huang et al. further shows, figures 4-5 disclose interconnect pins 431, 432, connected with the radiator of an antenna assembly projecting outside of a “trench” and the encapsulant layer (figure 4b, 4c) for connection to antenna assembly 41, 112 (figures 4a-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the antenna connection design of Huang et al. with Chug et al. in order to facilitate connection of the antenna to the interconnection pins.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13, 17-18 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. in view of Huang et al. as applied to claims 1, 16 and 21 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN209169386U).
Regarding claims 2-3, 17-18 and 22-23, Chun et al. discloses the antenna is a conductive metal foil (fig. 8-9 and [col. 6, line 60]). Chun discloses everything claimed except the antenna being a printed copper foil. Zhang discloses a printed antenna being formed of copper foil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the printed copper foil laminate, as suggested by Zhang for the metal foil of Chun et al., as modified, in order to facilitate applying the antenna and achieved strong conductance.
Regarding claims 4, 14, 19 and 24, Chun, as modified, discloses everything claimed except the, encapsulant specifically being epoxy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select epoxy for the encapsulant, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice (as acknowledged by applicant in the specification. paragraph 13). In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-19 and 21-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liao et al. [US10784208] and Jhang et al. [US20170181287] show alternate designs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINCOLN D DONOVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1988. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-6:30.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842