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Claims 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 9/29/22 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumana et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0123873) in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0301145).
Regarding claim 1, Perumana et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a package-to-package communication system, comprising: a first package (301 and associated elements) having a first antenna (306), a second antenna (307), and a first transceiver (301) coupled to the first antenna and the second antenna (see Fig. 3); and a second package (302 and associated elements) having a third antenna (311), a fourth antenna (312) and a second transceiver (302) coupled to the third antenna and the fourth antenna (see Fig. 3); and wherein the first antenna and the third antenna are configured to communicate signals of a vertical polarization (Pol. 1), and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are configured to communicate signals of a horizontal polarization (Pol. 2).
Perumana does not teach the first antenna and second antenna being integrated on a first substrate, wherein the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate, and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate; nor the third antenna and fourth antenna being integrated on a second substrate, wherein the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate, and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a first package having integrated on a first substrate (160) a first antenna (110), a second antenna (120), and a first transceiver (170) coupled to the first antenna and the second antenna (¶59); wherein the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3). Similarly, Lee may be considered to teach, as a separate instance, a second package having integrated on a second substrate (160) a third antenna (110), a fourth antenna (120), and a second transceiver (170) coupled to the third antenna and the fourth antenna (¶59); wherein the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that the first antenna, second antenna, and first transceiver are integrated on a first substrate such that the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate, and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate, and such that the third antenna, fourth antenna, and second transceiver are integrated on a second substrate such that the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate, and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling isolation between the first antenna and second antenna, and isolation between the third antenna and the fourth antenna (Lee, ¶64).
Regarding claim 2, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first transceiver is configured to transmit a single data stream via the first antenna and the second antenna (see Fig. 3, TX of 301 is configured to transmit a single data stream via 306 and 307 incorporating function of 303; it is considered by the Examiner to be inherent to the taught structure that 301 is capable of transmitting the self-same single data stream to both 306 and 307; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first transceiver is configured to transmit a first data stream via the first antenna and a second data stream via the second antenna (see Fig. 3, TX of 301 is configured to transmit a first data stream via 306 and a second data stream via 307, incorporating function of 303 and notably switch 305; it is considered by the Examiner to be inherent to the taught structure is capable of transmitting independent data streams to each of 306 and 307; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the first package and the second package are arranged that a radiation pattern of the first antenna is directed towards the third antenna, and a radiation pattern of the second antenna is directed towards the fourth antenna (see arrangement in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein an air gap is arranged between the first package and the second package (see gap between first package and second package, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not teach wherein the first edge and the second edge are arranged along opposing sides of the first substrate.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a first package having integrated on a first substrate (160) a first antenna (110), a second antenna (120), and a first transceiver (170) coupled to the first antenna and the second antenna (¶59); wherein the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3). Similarly, Lee may be considered to teach, as a separate instance, a second package having integrated on a second substrate (160) a third antenna (110), a fourth antenna (120), and a second transceiver (170) coupled to the third antenna and the fourth antenna (¶59); wherein the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3), wherein the first edge and the second edge are arranged along opposite sides of the first substrate (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that the first antenna, second antenna, and first transceiver are integrated on a first substrate such that the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate, and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate, and such that the third antenna, fourth antenna, and second transceiver are integrated on a second substrate such that the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate, and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate, wherein the first edge and the second edge are arranged along opposing sides of the first substrate, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling isolation between the first antenna and second antenna, and isolation between the third antenna and the fourth antenna (Lee, ¶64).
Regarding claim 10, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not teach wherein the third edge and the fourth edge are arranged along opposing sides of the second substrate.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a first package having integrated on a first substrate (160) a first antenna (110), a second antenna (120), and a first transceiver (170) coupled to the first antenna and the second antenna (¶59); wherein the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3). Similarly, Lee may be considered to teach, as a separate instance, a second package having integrated on a second substrate (160) a third antenna (110), a fourth antenna (120), and a second transceiver (170) coupled to the third antenna and the fourth antenna (¶59); wherein the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate (right edge, see Fig. 3), and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate (left edge, see Fig. 3), wherein the third edge and the fourth edge are arranged along opposite sides of the first substrate (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that the first antenna, second antenna, and first transceiver are integrated on a first substrate such that the first antenna is arranged along a first edge of the first substrate, and the second antenna is arranged along a second edge of the first substrate, and such that the third antenna, fourth antenna, and second transceiver are integrated on a second substrate such that the third antenna is arranged along a third edge of the second substrate, and the fourth antenna is arranged along a fourth edge of the second substrate, wherein the third edge and the fourth edge are arranged along opposing sides of the first substrate, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling isolation between the first antenna and second antenna, and isolation between the third antenna and the fourth antenna (Lee, ¶64).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumana et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0123873) in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0301145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ide et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0109104).
Regarding claim 4, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not explicitly teach wherein the first antenna and the third antenna are configured to communicate signals of a first frequency band, and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are configured to communicate signals of a second frequency band, wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are non-overlapping; however, Perumana does teach that each of the first antenna, second antenna, third antenna, and fourth antenna may be configured to communicate signals of one or more of a range of frequency bands (see ¶49 lines 1-12), and among these, certain frequency bands are non-overlapping.
Further, prior art such as Ide et al. teaches (Figs. 4, 10) an antenna package (Fig. 4) comprising: a first antenna (15), a second antenna (17), and a first transceiver coupled to the first antenna and the second antenna (11), wherein the first antenna is configured to communicate signals of a first frequency band (high band), and the second antenna is configured to communicate signals of a second frequency band (low band), wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are non-overlapping (see Fig. 1)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication of Perumana such that the first antenna and the third antenna are configured to communicate signals of a first frequency band, and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are configured to communicate signals of a second frequency band, wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are non-overlapping, employing the teachings of Ide.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling multiband operation of the antenna (see Ide, abstract).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumana et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0123873) in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0301145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0287012).
Regarding claim 7, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not teach wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are arranged in a common plane of the first substrate.
Aizawa teaches (Fig. 3) a first package (110) having integrated on a first substrate (¶82 lines 9-13) a first antenna (11), and a second antenna (12), wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are arranged in a common plane of the first substrate (¶82 lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that the first antenna and the second antenna are arranged in a common plane of the first substrate, employing the teachings of Aizawa.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying configuration of the communication system (Aizawa, ¶99).
Regarding claim 9, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not teach wherein the third antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged in a common plane of the second substrate.
Aizawa teaches (Fig. 3) a second package (110) having integrated on a second substrate (¶82 lines 9-13) a third antenna (11), and a fourth antenna (12), wherein the third antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged in a common plane of the second substrate (¶82 lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that the third antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged in a common plane of the second substrate, employing the teachings of Aizawa.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying configuration of the communication system (Aizawa, ¶99).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumana et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0123873) in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0301145) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shtrom (US PG Pub. No. 2006/0192720).
Regarding claim 11, Perumana teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Perumana does not teach wherein at least one of the first antenna, the second antenna, the third antenna, and the fourth antenna is a multiband antenna.
Shtrom teaches (Figs. 1, 2A, 5, 6) a communication system comprising: a first antenna (205a), a second antenna (205b), a third antenna (205c), and a fourth antenna (205d), wherein at least one of the first antenna, the second antenna, the third antenna, and the fourth antenna is a multiband antenna (see Figs. 5, 6; element 510; see also ¶26, and ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Perumana such that at least one of the first antenna, the second antenna, the third antenna, and the fourth antenna is a multiband antenna, employing the teachings of Shtrom.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling multiband operation of the communication device (Shtrom, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitations of “wherein the first antenna comprises a plurality of antenna elements respectively coupled to at least one of two co-planar feeding structures on an internal layer of the first substrate close to a bottom layer of the first substrate, wherein the plurality of antenna elements is configured as a capacitively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna (CL-MPLPA) and/or inductively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna (IL-MPLPA)”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitations of “wherein the second antenna is configured as a capacitively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna (CL- MPLPA) and/or inductively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna (IL- MPLPA) having a plurality of antenna elements respectively coupled to at least one of two co-planar feeding structures on an internal layer close to a bottom layer of the first package, and wherein a plurality of vias is arranged next to the antenna elements”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brunner (US Patent No. 3,808,599) teaches a communication system comprising a plurality of antenna elements configured as a capacitively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna and/or inductively loaded monopole log-periodic antenna; Steward (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0209387), Johannson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0242601), Sudo et al. (US Patent No. 9,865,928), Rawnick et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2003/0214437) and Rosser et al. (US Patent No. 4,763,131) teach various substrate-integrated feeding structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights