DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa et al. (US 2019/0241729, “Tanigawa”) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2013/0222196, “Hashimoto”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Tanigawa teaches an antenna-equipped semiconductor package ([0156] [0161]) containing an insulating layer inside the antenna unit (see Fig. 1(b), resin layer 12a, [0161], [0091], [0092]) and wherein the insulating layer material may be a styrene based elastomer (e.g., [0092], thus having a double bond) and including a compound that may generate a radical (e.g., curing agent peroxide or azo compound, [0088], [0089]). Tanigawa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an RF chip in the laminate structure, however, such a construction is known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor devices ([0030], [0031]), Hashimoto teaches a semiconductor package comprising both an semiconductor chip and an antenna element in order to create a wireless device or information processing apparatus ([0030], [0031], and see, e.g., Fig. 7B, having a semiconductor RF chip 102, an antenna element 703, and a via 709 connecting the antenna element to the other side of the circuit board so as to connect to a terminal 106; please also see [0032] wherein the chip transmits and receives signals and is thus considered an RF chip, and see Fig. 7A). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have included such an RF chip in the construction of Tanigawa in order to create a wireless information processing apparatus ([0030], [0031]).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Tanigawa teaches that a radical forming curing initiator (or curing accelerator, catalyst, or agent) may be included in up to 5% (peroxides or azo compounds that are known to form radicals, [0088], [0089]). Further, while Tanigawa teaches that epoxy moieties may be included, Tanigawa does not teach that they are required and further teaches that alternative reactive moieties may be used (e.g., [0093]).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Tanigawa additionally teaches the inclusion of various styrene block copolymers including styrene butadiene styrene block copolymers that may include alpha-olefins, including butene ([0097] – [0101], and may include butene, see [0101]).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Tanigawa additionally teaches that the semiconductor package may include PTFE fillers ([0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanigawa additionally teaches that the material may be used to form a film ([0019], [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanigawa additionally teaches the inclusion of inorganic fillers in the amount of 50% or less by mass (e.g., [0128] - [0130]).
Regarding claim 13, Tanigawa additionally teaches to include a polyphenylene ether ([0004], [0005], [0159], and also see [0077] showing a polyphenylene ether monomeric component) and that this component may be terminated with a functional group including a reactive group that includes a vinyl group (see [0093]).
Regarding claim 15, Tanigawa additionally teaches to include, for example, a radical-generating initiator in the range of from 0.1 to 5% by mass (that is, a degradable compound, [0088], [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, Tanigawa additionally teaches that the insulating layer may have a solder heat resistance of about 290C for 2 minutes in a solder heat resistance test (see [0215], [0216]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of Hashimoto as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sakamoto (US 2017/0342235, “Sakamoto”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, while Tanigawa teaches the inclusion of a styrene butadiene block copolymer (e.g., including SBBS type copolymers, [0097], [0098] and on a range of from 2 to 98% by mass, [0047]), Tanigawa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a styrene/butadiene/butylene/styrene block copolymer. However, such block copolymers are well known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of thermoplastic elastomers ([0002] – [0016]), Sakamoto teaches that a styrene/butadiene/butylene/styrene block copolymer provides good flowabilty, flexibility, and molding processability (see Sakamoto [0040] – [0042]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to have substituted the styrene/butadiene/butylene/styrene block copolymer of Sakamoto for that of Tanigawa in order to provide good flowabilty, flexibility, and molding processability (see Sakamoto [0040] – [0042]). Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another that would have provided predictable results (i.e., in this case a suitable resin for use in the invention of Tanigawa) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 12, Tanigawa additionally teaches the inclusion of inorganic fillers in the amount of 50% or less by mass (e.g., [0128] - [0130]).
Regarding claim 14, Tanigawa additionally teaches to include a polyphenylene ether ([0004], [0005], [0159], and also see [0077] showing a polyphenylene ether monomeric component) and that this component may be terminated with a functional group including a reactive group that includes a vinyl group (see [0093]).
Regarding claim 16, Tanigawa additionally teaches to include, for example, a radical-generating initiator in the range of from 0.1 to 5% by mass (that is, a degradable compound, [0088], [0089]).
Regarding claim 18, Tanigawa additionally teaches that the insulating layer may have a solder heat resistance of about 290C for 2 minutes in a solder heat resistance test (see [0215], [0216]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Tanigawa further provides embodiments wherein there is no epoxy component in the resin and thus reads on the range of less than 5 parts by mass of the total styrene based elastomer (e.g., teaching that an epoxy is an optional component for inclusion, [0093], [0094]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights