DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 17, and 21 – 23 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, and 7 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 5,151,770).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1):
A radio frequency front end module comprising:
a first filter module (24) disposed on a substrate (21);
a second filter module (26) disposed on the substrate;
a resin casing (22) disposed on the substrate and encapsulating the first and second filter modules; and
a radio frequency shield (23) disposed between the first and second filter modules, the radio frequency shield including a plurality of vias formed in the resin casing and extending perpendicular to the substrate of the front end module (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1):
The front end module of claim 1 wherein the radio frequency shield is disposed parallel to the first and second filter modules.
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1):
The front end module of claim 2 wherein the radio frequency shield is formed from a single row of vias parallel to the first and second filters.
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1):
The front end module of claim 2 wherein the radio frequency shield if formed from two rows of perpendicular vias parallel to the first and second filter modules.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches (FIG. 7, col 2):
The front end module of claim 1 wherein the first filter module and the second filter module have a respective first and second end, a radio frequency signal passed by the first filter module and the second filter module configured to pass from the first end to the second end.
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches (FIG. 7):
The front end module of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of ports for connection to an external circuit (16, 13).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches (FIG. 7, col 2):
The front end module of claim 7 wherein the first and second ends of the first filter form first and second ports of the front end module.
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches (FIG. 7, col 2):
The front end module of claim 9 wherein the first and second ends of the second filter form third and fourth ports of the front end module.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches (ABSTRACT):
The front end module of claim 1 wherein the plurality of vias are arranged to interact with waves radiated from the first filter module and the second filter module.
Regarding claim 12, Inoue teaches (ABSTRACT):
The front end module of claim 11 wherein interaction includes reflecting or refracting radiation from the first filter module away from the second filter module.
Regarding claim 13, Inoue teaches (BACKGROUND):
The front end module of claim 1 further configured to pass waves of less than 6GHz.
Regarding claim 14, Inoue teaches (FIG. 7):
The front end module of claim 1 wherein the front end module is a multi chip module.
Regarding claim 15, Inoue teaches (FIG. 2):
The front end module of claim 1 further including a second shield disposed on a perimeter of the front end module.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches (FIG. 2):
The front end module of claim 15 wherein the second shield completely surrounds the first and second filter modules.
Regarding claim 17, Inoue teaches (ABSTRACT):
The front end module of claim 15 wherein the second shield is configured to interact with waves radiated from the first filter module and the second filter module.
Regarding claim 21, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1):
A radio frequency front end module comprising:
a first filter (24) disposed on a substrate (21);
a second filter (26) disposed on the substrate;
a resin casing (22) that encapsulates the first filter and the second filter; and
a radio frequency shield (23) disposed between the first filter and the second filter, the radio frequency shield including a plurality of protrusions formed in the resin casing and extending perpendicular to the substrate (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Inoue teaches (ABSTRACT):
The radio frequency front end module of claim 21 wherein the plurality of protrusions include conductive material.
Regarding claim 23, Inoue teaches (FIG. 1, 2):
The radio frequency front end module of claim 21 wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged in multiple rows.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 5,151,770).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches the spacing and height of the conductive structures is adapted to be sufficiently close so that electromagnetic radiation of the operating frequency of the circuits may be blocked (col 4 – 5), but fails to expressly disclose:
The front end module of claim 4 wherein a first row of vias is offset from a second row of vias in a plane perpendicular to the radio frequency shield by a distance equal to half of the distance between each of the vias of a particular row.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the offset spacings of the shielding structures to whatever value was necessary or expedient for the given operating frequency of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches the spacing and height of the conductive structures is adapted to be sufficiently close so that electromagnetic radiation of the operating frequency of the circuits may be blocked (col 4 – 5), but fails to expressly disclose:
The front end module of claim 4 wherein a distance between each via in a particular row is equal to 200 to 300 microns.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the offset spacings of the shielding structures to whatever value was necessary or expedient for the given operating frequency of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624