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
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1.16.2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the molding, the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note: the applicant points to Fig. 3 as evidence of a molding and related structures; however, the specification fails to disclose/recite any molding or related structures. In Fig. 3, the entirety of 113 is disclosed as “the carrier substrate 113 is for example a leadframe...” without evidence of having both a leadframe and a molding as required by the claim. Hence, the claimed subject matter is not shown.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, “a carrier substrate, which is a leadframe including a molding and a plurality of bumps for soldering on a circuit board, with the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding” causes the claim to fail to comply with the written description requirement.
First, Fig. 3 discloses a plurality of bumps but there is no evidence of support for “soldering on a circuit board” (emphasis added) as claimed. The specification at [0003] discloses “a chip package is usually mounted at a predetermined location on a PCB (printed circuit board) to form a PCBA (printed circuit board assembly) architecture to work integrally” (emphasis added) wherein mounting is a generic/broad term which may include soldering, but a generic/broad term does not provide support for a specific type of mounting (i.e., soldering) if that specific type of mounting isn’t disclosed in the specification. The examiner suggests replacing “soldering” with –mounting-- per [0003].
Second, in Fig. 3, the entirety of 113 is disclosed as “the carrier substrate 113 is for example a leadframe...” without evidence of having both a leadframe and a molding as required by the claim. While it is likely that the carrier substrate 113 includes a leadframe and a molding per Fig. 3, unfortunately, the filed disclosure does not disclose said features and the likelihood of something being present does not raise to the level of showing support for the claimed invention.
The examiner notes that MPEP 2163 states “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure”. In the instant case, there is no express disclosure of a leadframe and a molding; furthermore, there is no sufficient evidence to establish that there is implicit or inherent disclosure for the carrier substrate to comprise a leadframe and a molding as claimed even if those features are likely to be present because neither [0029] nor Fig. 3 disclose separate elements which could be designated as a leadframe and a molding.
Hence, the examiner does not find support for “a carrier substrate, which is a leadframe including a molding and a plurality of bumps for soldering on a circuit board, with the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding”.
None of the dependent claims 2-4 and 7 address the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “a carrier substrate, which is a leadframe including a molding and a plurality of bumps for soldering on a circuit board, with the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding” is indefinite because it conflicts with the specification which is the basis for indefiniteness rejections per MPEP 2173.03 – “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty”.
The claim requires separate elements in the form of a leadframe and a molding which conflicts with the specification because neither [0029] nor Fig. 3 disclose with sufficient clarity separate elements which could be designated as a leadframe and a molding.
Hence, the claim conflicts with the specification to the level of indefiniteness. None of the dependent claims 2-4 and 7 address the deficiencies of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1.9.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges that Fig. 3 provides support for “a carrier substrate, which is a leadframe including a molding and a plurality of bumps for soldering on a circuit board, with the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding” based on an annotated Fig. 3 provided by the applicant (see below). This is not persuasive because as addressed above there is no sufficient evidence for Fig. 3 nor [0029] disclosing a separate leadframe and molding as required by claim 1; see drawing objection and 35 USC 112 rejections above.
PNG
media_image2.png
426
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 1.9.2026, with respect to the prior art of record failing to disclose or suggest “a carrier substrate, which is a leadframe including a molding and a plurality of bumps for soldering on a circuit board, with the semiconductor chip being encapsulated inside the molding and the RF coaxial connector being separately mounted on an edge surface of the molding” as required by claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
No prior art rejection has been found applicable to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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.
/Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818