DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received 06/03/2025. Claims 1, 2, 13, 19, 21, 22, 30, and 31 have been amended. Claims 1-31 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 22 overcomes the 112(a) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 112(b) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
554
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, a device ("a wireless system 100") comprising:
a waveguide substrate ("a system substrate 104") including:
opposite first and second surfaces ("opposite surfaces 124 and 126"), the first surface including metal pads ("The system substrate 104 can include various conductors or conductive regions (e.g., metal pads) on the surfaces 124 and 126", [0021];
a dielectric layer between the first and second surfaces ("the system substrate 104 includes an electrical insulation material between the surfaces 124 and 126. The electrical insulation material can include a dielectric material, a fiberglass material, in one or more layers, etc", [0021]);
an opening ("openings 130 and 132") extending through the dielectric layer and connecting between the first and second surfaces ("The system substrate 104 further includes openings 130 and 132 through a thickness (e.g., in the z-dimension) of the system substrate 104, extending from the surface 124 to the surface 126, as may be filled with air", [0022], " The opening 130 can provide (or can be part of) a waveguide 134", [0022]); and
sidewalls (“sidewalls 138 and 140”) surrounding the opening (see Fig. 1A),
wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening (see Fig. 4A),
wherein the sidewalls define first and second ridge structures ("ridges 214 and 216") positioned between the two oblong circular structures (see Fig. 4A), and wherein
wherein each of the first and second ridge structures extend along the opening ("the openings 130 and 132 may each have a particular and uniform cross-sectional shape through the thickness of the system substrate 104", [0022]).
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, 4, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
463
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 5 of Qiang discloses a device (“a radio frequency device 350”, col. 5, line 29) comprising:
a waveguide substrate (“a first board dielectric substrate 28”, col. 5, lines 37-38) including:
opposite first (“first side 1”, col. 5, line 51) and second surfaces (“second side 2” col. 5, line 51, as seen in Fig. 5, 1 and 2 are on opposite sides of 28), the first surface including electrically conductive pads (“first board electrically conductive layer 35”, as seen in Fig. 5, there are multiple instances of 35 on 1);
a dielectric layer between the first and second surfaces (28 is a dielectric layer, see col. 5, line 40, as seen in Fig. 5, 28 is between 1 and 2);
an opening extending through the dielectric layer and connecting between the first and second surfaces (“The hole 25 is arranged through the first board dielectric substrate 28 and extends from the first side 1 to the second side 2”, col 5, lines 49-51); and
sidewalls surrounding the opening (the vertical portions of 28 adjacent to 25 are sidewalls that surround the opening),
Fig. 5 of Qiang fails to disclose “metal pads;
wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening,
wherein the sidewalls define first and second ridge structures positioned between the two oblong circular structures,
wherein each of the first and second ridge structures extend along the opening.”
PNG
media_image4.png
428
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
429
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner teach metal pads (“block 18 and 20 could be injection molded out of a plastic material and then metal coated”, col. 7, lines 48-50, block 18 of Schaffner is equivalent to 28 of Qiang, the metal coating of Schaffner equivalent to 35 of Schaffner, therefore 35 of Qiang are metal pads);
wherein the sidewalls (the vertical portions of 18 adjacent to the opening seen in Figs. 5A and 5B are sidewalls equivalent to the vertical portions of 28 adjacent to 25 of Qiang) define two oblong circular structures in the opening (as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B, the vertical portions of 18 adjacent to the opening in 18 define two circular structures, Schaffner does not teach oblong circular structures, however a secondary reference will be utilized for this feature below),
wherein the sidewalls define first and second ridge structures (“A ridge 14r preferably occurs in the waveguide 14 on either side thereof projecting in an inwardly direction”, col. 6, lines 40-41, where 14 of Schaffner is equivalent to 25 of Qiang and a first instance of 14r denoted as 14rA in Fig. 6 is a first ridge structure, a second instance of 14r denoted as 14rB in Fig. 6 is a second ridge structure) positioned between the two oblong circular structures (as seen in Fig. 5B, 14r are positioned between the two circular structures),
wherein each of the first and second ridge structures extend along the opening (as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B, 14rA and 14rB extend along the opening in 18 equivalent to 25 of Qiang, further “14r may extend all the way up the horn antenna with a more or less constant width”, col. 6, lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “metal pads;
wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening,
wherein the sidewalls define first and second ridge structures positioned between the two oblong circular structures,
wherein each of the first and second ridge structures extend along the opening” as taught by Schaffner in the system of Qiang for the purpose of “[expanding] the bandwidth over what is available for a rectangular waveguide by decreasing the cut-off frequency of the waveguide”, col. 7, lines 8-11.
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner fails to disclose “wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening”.
PNG
media_image6.png
323
889
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis teaches wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening (as seen in Fig. 1, “balun structures 1118”, [0127], have four oblong circular structures, this shape can be applied to 25 of Qiang, thus the vertical portions of 28 adjacent to 25 define two oblong circular structures in 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the sidewalls define two oblong circular structures in the opening” as taught by Dogiamis in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffer for the purpose of tuning the response of the antenna element.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 1, Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner further disclose wherein:
the first ridge structure is on a first side of the opening (the side of 14 denoted as SA in Fig. 5B is a first side of 14, 14rA is on SA);
the second ridge structure is on a second side of the opening (the side of 14 denoted as SB in Fig. 5B is a second side of 14, 14rB is on SB); and
the first and second sides are opposite to each other (as seen in Fig. 5B, SA and SB are opposite to each other relative to the vertical axis of Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 3, Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner further disclose wherein the first ridge structure extends along a middle line of the first side (the line denoted as MLA in Fig. 5B is a vertically centered middle line of SA, as seen in Fig. 5B, 14rA extends along MLA), and the second ridge structure extends along a middle line of the second side (the line denoted as MLB in Fig. 5B is a vertically centered middle line of SB, as seen in Fig. 5B, 14rB extends along MLB).
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 1, Fig. 5 of Qiang further discloses further comprising:
a packaged semiconductor device (“integrated circuit package 310”, col. 5, line 31) coupled to the metal pads via interconnects (“via hole 104”, col. 6, line 28, serves as interconnects, “The integrated circuit die 250 may be electrically connected to the radiating element 100 via e.g. a via hole 104 extending through the package dielectric substrate 101 or via solder balls, or otherwise”, col. 6, lines 26-29, as seen in Fig. 5, 310 is coupled to 35 via 104, solder-balls 122, and solder-balls 123), the packaged semiconductor device including a signal patch (“first radiating element 100”, col. 5, line 57, “100 … may be one of the group of radiating elements comprising: … a rectangular patched single-ended antenna, a rectangular patched differential antenna, a square patched single-ended antenna, a square patched differential antenna”, col. 6, lines 40-45) facing the opening (as seen in Fig. 5, 100 faces 25) and the interconnects surround the opening (as seen in Fig. 5, 104 are on opposite sides of 25 and therefore surround 25); and
an antenna (“second radiating element 200”, col. 6, line 4) mounted on the second surface (“200 may be one of the group of radiating elements comprising: a single-ended microstrip antenna, a differential microstrip antenna, a rectangular patched single-ended antenna, a rectangular patched differential antenna, a square patched single-ended antenna, a square patched differential antenna, a waveguide, and a slotline”, col. 6, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 1, Fig. 5 of Qiang further discloses wherein the substrate includes a printed circuit board (PCB) (“The PCB 300 may comprise … a first board dielectric substrate 28”, col. 5, lines 34-38).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Uemichi (US 11,050,130 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 1, Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner further disclose wherein the opening is configured to be a waveguide (14 is “a ridged waveguide”, col. 4, line 56).
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis fails to specify “dimensions of a footprint of the opening are based on a cut off frequency of the waveguide.”
PNG
media_image7.png
902
639
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 1(a)-1(c) of Uemichi teach dimensions of a footprint of the opening are based on a cut off frequency of the waveguide (“a width of a waveguide region is determined based on a cut-off frequency”, col. 9, lines 21-22, the “waveguide region” of Uemichi corresponds to 14 of Schaffner, further, the waveguide opening footprint is of a given size that will have an associated wavelength that propagates and other wavelengths which do not, where the threshold between the two is the cut off frequency, while width is only one dimension of a footprint, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to base both dimensions of the waveguide footprint if desired).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “dimensions of a footprint of the opening are based on a cut off frequency of the waveguide” as taught by Uemichi in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner and Dogiamis for the purpose of obtaining the desired waveguide cut off frequency.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 1.
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis fails to disclose “further comprising an isolation structure adjacent to the opening”.
PNG
media_image8.png
860
1077
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 4 of Achour teaches further comprising an isolation structure (“boundary vias 162”, col. 15, lines 48-49) adjacent to the opening (as seen in Fig. 4, 162 are adjacent to “slots 160”, col. 15, lines 53-54, where 160 of Achour is equivalent to 25 of Qiang, further “in some cases, vias such as boundary vias 162 are formed along super elements and/or around groupings of radiating elements, and termination vias 164 which form a terminal end to a super element(s). The vias are holes formed from one conductive layer to another, such as from conductive surface 165 through substrate 150 to conductive layer 167. These holes may be filled with a conductive material, or may be holes lined with conductive material. The size, shape, configuration and placement of vias is a function of the design, application and frequency of the applied system, such as a radar system”, col. 16, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “further comprising an isolation structure adjacent to the opening” as taught by Achour in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner and Dogiamis “to maintain the integrity of a transmission path” (Achour, col. 17, line 12).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis and Fig. 4 of Achour disclose the device of claim 6, Fig. 4 of Achour further discloses wherein the isolation structure includes a cavity opening (162 “are holes formed from one conductive layer to another, such as from conductive surface 165 through substrate 150 to conductive layer 167”, col. 16, lines 49-51, 10 of Achour is equivalent to 28 of Qiang, 165 and 167 of Achour are equivalent to 35 and “second board electrically conductive layer 93”, col. 5, lines 35-36, of Qiang) towards the second surface (after substation of 162 of Achour into Qiang, 162 is a cavity stretching extending from 35 to 93, 162 therefore opens towards both 1 and 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,244,902 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, and Fig. 4 of Achour disclose the device of claim 7, Fig. 4 of Achour further discloses further comprising a conductive member (“iris structures 190”, “the irises are vias formed through all or a portion of the layers of substrate 150. The irises are illustrated in the figures as cylindrical, but may take on other shapes, such as rectangular prism shapes and so forth. The vias are lined with a conductive material and act as an impedance to the wave propagating through the super elements”, col. 16, lines 36-42) between the opening and the cavity opening (as seen in Fig. 4, 190 are between some instances of 160 and 162).
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, and Fig. 4 of Achour disclose the device of claim 7, Fig. 4 of Achour fails to disclose “a metal member.”
However, in a device that is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, Kim teaches a metal member (“The contact plug 150 may have a thickness that sufficiently fills the contact hole 130. It may be formed by depositing a conductive material, such as a metal”, col. 11, lines 14-16, therefore the conductive material of 190 of Achour can be a metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “a metal member” as taught by Kim in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner, Dogiamis and Achour for the purpose of acting as obstacles for RF wave propagation.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2) in view of Shank et al. (US 10,643,927 B1), in view of Kuo et al. (US 11,502,402 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis and Fig. 4 of Achour disclose the device of claim 7.
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis and Fig. 4 of Achour fails to disclose “further comprising a dielectric material in the cavity opening.”
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 4 of Shank teaches further comprising a dielectric material in the cavity opening (“A dielectric fill material, such as silicon dioxide, is deposited into the isolation trenches, for example, using an enhanced high aspect ratio process (eHARP) to fill the isolation trenches”, col. 8, lines 4-7, “the low-κ dielectric material … increases the structural stability of the device (as compared to … air gaps)” Kuo, col. 13, lines 5-9, the isolation trenches of Shank are equivalent to 162 of Achour, 162 is therefore filled with a dielectric material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “further comprising a dielectric material in the cavity opening” as taught by Qiang in combination with Schaffner, Dogiamis, and Achour for the purpose of improving the structural stability of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, Fig. 4 of Achour, Fig. 4 of Shank and Kuo disclose the device of claim 9, Fig. 5 of Qiang further discloses further comprising a metal layer opposing the cavity opening (after substitution of 162 of Achour into Qiang, 93 of Qiang covers an opening of 162, 93 is therefore a layer opposing the opening of 162, further 93 of Qiang is an “electrically conductive layer”, Qiang, col. 5, lines 34-36, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a metal layer for 93).
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, Fig. 4 of Achour, Fig. 4 of Shank and Kuo disclose the device of claim 11, Fig. 4 of Shank further discloses wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric material (the dielectric fill material of Shank is a first dielectric material).
Fig. 5 of Qiang further discloses the device further comprises a second dielectric material (28 is “a first board dielectric substrate”, col. 5, lines 37-38, and is therefore made of a dielectric material) between the metal layer and the first surface (as seen in Fig. 5, 28 is between 93 and 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2) in view of Shank et al. (US 10,643,927 B1), in view of Kuo et al. (US 11,502,402 B2) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,244,902 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, Fig. 4 of Achour, Fig. 4 of Shank and Kuo disclose the device of claim 9, Fig. 4 of Achour further discloses further comprising a conductive layer (“boundary vias 162 … are holes formed from one conductive layer to another … These holes may be filled with a conductive material, or may be holes lined with conductive material”, col. 16, lines 46-53, covering a sidewall and a bottom of the cavity opening (lining 162 with a conductive material would necessitate covering the sidewalls, after substitution of 162 of Achour into Qiang, 35 and 93 of Qiang would cover the top and bottom of 162 depending on the defined orientation of the cavity, 35 and 93 of Qiang are each an “electrically conductive layer”, Qiang, col. 5, lines 34-36, therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a metal layer for 35 and 93).
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, Fig. 4 of Achour, Fig. 4 of Shank and Kuo fails to disclose “a metal layer.”
However, in a device that is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, Kim teaches a metal layer (“The contact plug 150 may have a thickness that sufficiently fills the contact hole 130. It may be formed by depositing a conductive material, such as a metal”, col. 11, lines 14-16, therefore, the conductive material of 162 of Achour is a metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “a metal member” as taught by Kim in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner, Dogiamis, and Achour for the purpose of acting as obstacles for RF wave propagation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2) in view of Wakabayashi et al. (US 8,680,954 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, and Fig. 4 of Achour disclose the device of claim 7.
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner, Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis, and Fig. 4 of Achour fails to disclose “wherein the isolation structure includes a trench structure surrounding the opening, the trench structure opening towards the second surface, and the device further includes a metal layer covering a sidewall and a bottom of the trench structure, and the cavity is part of the trench structure.”
PNG
media_image9.png
558
481
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 1-7 of Wakabayashi teach wherein the isolation structure includes a trench structure (“stub 3”, col. 4, line 43) surrounding the opening (as seen in Fig. 2, 3 is a trench structure that surrounds “first waveguide path 2”, 2 of Wakabayashi is equivalent to 25 of Qiang), the trench structure opening towards the second surface (3 is use to improve the connection of “waveguide case 1” to another substrate, after substitution of 3 of Wakabayashi into Qiang, 3 would be formed on 28 at the interface between 28 and “second board dielectric substrate 98”, col. 5, lines 38-39 of Qiang, and would therefore open towards 2), and the device further includes a metal layer covering a sidewall and a bottom of the trench structure (“both the wall and bottom of the stub 3 are plated with gold”, col. 4, lines 51-52), and the cavity is part of the trench structure (as discussed previously, “the size, shape, configuration and placement of [162] is a function of the design, application and frequency of the applied system, such as a radar system”, Achour col. 16, lines 53-55, therefore the shape of 162 of Achour could be modified to match that of 3 of Wakabayashi making 162 of Achour part of the trench structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the isolation structure includes a trench structure surrounding the opening, the trench structure opening towards the second surface, and the device further includes a metal layer covering a sidewall and a bottom of the trench structure, and the cavity is part of the trench structure” as taught by Wakabayashi in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner, Dogiamis, and Achour for the purpose of reducing insertion loss in a waveguide connection (“As shown in FIG. 9, in a conventional stub-free waveguide connection structure shown in FIG. 8, as a gap between a waveguide case 1 and a resin substrate 31 widens, the insertion loss increases. This shows that the electromagnetic waves R leak out from the gap between the waveguide case 21 and the resin substrate 31.
On the other hand, in the present embodiment shown in FIG. 7, as the gap between the waveguide case 1 and the resin substrate 11 widens, the insertion loss increases. However, the increment of the insertion loss is clearly small compared to that of FIG. 9”, col. 7, lines 13-23).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in view of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 11,777,201 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis disclose the device of claim 17, Fig. 5 of Qiang further discloses wherein:
the opening is a first opening (25 is a first opening);
the antenna has an antenna surface (the top face of 200 is an antenna surface) facing the second surface (the top face of 200 is facing 2); and
Fig. 5 of Qiang in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis fails to disclose “wherein the antenna includes:
a second opening extending from the antenna surface aligned with the first opening, and
a trench structure opening towards the antenna surface and surrounding the second opening.”
PNG
media_image10.png
476
641
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 1 of Tang teaches wherein the antenna includes:
a second opening (“through via 106”, col. 4, line 35) extending from the antenna surface (the bottom surface of the region denoted as “ANT” in Fig. 1 is equivalent to the top face of 200 of Qiang, as seen in Fig. 1, 106 extends from the bottom surface of ANT) aligned with the first opening (it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to align 106 of Tang with 25 of Qiang to permit the transmission of a RF signal from 25 of Qiang to 106 of Tang and vice versa), and
a trench structure (“ring slot 104”, col. 3, line 42) opening towards the antenna surface (as seen in Fig. 1, 104 opens towards the bottom surface of ANT) and surrounding the second opening (“104 may include and/or represent a whole annular slot that completely encompasses and/or surrounds through via 106”, col. 3, lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the antenna includes:
a second opening extending from the antenna surface aligned with the first opening, and
a trench structure opening towards the antenna surface and surrounding the second opening” as taught by Tang in the system of Qiang in combination with Schaffner and Dogiamis for the purpose of tuning the frequency and bandwidth of the RF resonance (see Tang, col 8, lines 8-18)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 13-15, 19-20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the device as recited in the claims of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 5 of Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) discloses a similar device but fails to disclose the shape of the sidewalls of the two oblong circular regions in the opening, as required by claim 2, specifically “wherein the sidewalls include a curved sidewall and a planar sidewall defining a first oblong circular region of the two oblong circular regions in the opening.”
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 5 of Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1), Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1), and Fig. 4 of Achour et al. (US 11,444,387 B2) discloses a similar device, but fails to disclose the arrangement of the openings and cavity required by claim 13, specifically “wherein the device further comprises:
a first metal layer covering the first sidewall of the first opening, the first metal layer extending along the first opening and reaching the first and second surfaces; and
a second metal layer covering the second sidewall of the second opening, the second metal layer extending along the second opening and reaching the first and second surfaces; and
wherein the first and second metal layers provide a sidewall of the cavity.”
Claims 14-15 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 5 of Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1), Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1), and Fig. 1 of Tang et al. (US 11,777,201 B2) discloses a similar device, but fails to disclose the arrangement of the trench structures as required by claim 19, specifically “wherein the substrate includes a second trench structure extending towards the second surface and surrounding the first opening; and
wherein the first trench structure is aligned with the second trench structure.”
Claim 20 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 19.
Claims 22-31 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the device as recited in the claims of the instant application.
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 5 of Qiang et al. (US 10,225,925 B2) in combination with Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6 of Schaffner et al. (US 8,390,403 B1) and Figs. 11A and 11B of Dogiamis et al. (US 20190207287 A1) discloses a similar device, but fails to disclose the arrangement of the openings and cavity required by claim 25, specifically “a second opening extending through the dielectric layer, connecting between the first and second surfaces, and aligned with the packaged semiconductor device”.
Claims 23-31 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KUPP whose telephone number is (571)272-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PT.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN MICHAEL KUPP/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893