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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10; 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanolkar et al (US 2024/0038691 A1-of record, hereafter Khanolkar) in view of GU et al (US 2023/0130460 A1-of record, hereafter Gu).
Re claim 1, Khanolkar discloses in FIG. 1E a die module (125), comprising:
a die (104; [0037]) with a first surface (105; [0030]) and a second surface (115; [0037]);
a first pad (exposed portions of 114; [0037]) on the second surface (115) of the die (104), wherein a top surface (upper plane) of the first pad (exposed portions of 114) is substantially coplanar (level) with the second surface (115);
an antenna module (1081; [0037]) with a third surface (bottom plane) and a fourth surface (top plane).
Khanolkar fails to disclose and a second pad on the third surface (bottom plane) of the antenna module (1081), wherein a bottom surface of the second pad is substantially coplanar with the third surface (bottom plane), wherein the top surface (upper plane) of the first pad (exposed portions of 114) directly contacts the bottom surface of the second pad, and wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with the first pad and the second pad.
However,
Gu discloses in FIG. 3 a bonded module comprising: a second pad (1131; [0026]) on a third surface (S2; [0026]) of a module (112; [0026]), wherein a bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131) is substantially coplanar (same height; [0026]) with the third surface (S2), and wherein a top surface (upper plane) of a first pad (1531; [0026]) of a die (152; [0026]) directly contacts (hybrid bonding at 1134/1534) the bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the record, the inserted figure (annotated FIG. 3 of Gu) depicts the second pad on the third surface, wherein a bottom surface of the second pad is substantially coplanar with the third surface, wherein the top surface of the first pad directly contacts the bottom surface of the second pad.
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by adding the second pad of Gu to the antenna module of Khanolkar, eliminating the solder balls, such that the antenna module comprises a second pad on the third surface (bottom plane) of the antenna module (1081), wherein a bottom surface of the second pad is substantially coplanar with the third surface (bottom plane), wherein the top surface (upper plane) of the first pad (exposed portions of 114) directly contacts the bottom surface of the second pad, as disclosed by Gu (see inserted figure above), and wherein an antenna (left/right 153) of the antenna module (1081) is vertically overlapping with the first pad (114) and the second pad (1131; see inserted figure below), eliminating the need to form an additional structure of connection circuits or connection interfaces, for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density (Gu; [0031]).
PNG
media_image2.png
906
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For the record, the inserted figure (FIG. 1E of Khanolkar annotated with FIG. 3 of Gu) depicts wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with the first pad and the second pad.
Re claim 2, Khanolkar discloses the die module of claim 1, wherein the second surface (115) of the die (104) is coupled (by 133 as in FIG. 1C; [0035]) to the third surface (bottom plane) of the antenna module (128).
Khanolkar fails to disclose wherein the second surface (115) of the die (104) is bonded to the third surface (bottom plane) of the antenna module (128)
However, Gu renders these limitations obvious as part of the direct (hybrid) bonding for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density discussed for claim 1.
Re claims 3-4, Khanolkar discloses the die module of claim 2, wherein the third surface (bottom plane) of the antenna module (128) comprises a glass material ([0036]), and wherein the second surface (115) of the die (104) comprises an insulator (dielectric material; [0030]).
But, fails to disclose wherein the insulator (dielectric material) comprises a material comprising nitrogen, carbon, and silicon, or a material comprising oxygen and silicon.
However, Gu discloses wherein a second surface (S1; [0026]) of the die (152) comprises an insulator (silicon dioxide; [0018]), wherein the insulator (silicon dioxide) comprises a material comprising nitrogen, carbon, and silicon, or a material comprising oxygen and silicon (SiO2; [0018]).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by using the silicon dioxide of Gu as the insulator material comprising oxygen and silicon, as a well-known (MPEP § 2144.03) substitutional equivalent (MPEP § 2144.06), for achieving the expected result of isolating layered conductive layers of a die comprising an insulator surface.
Re claim 5, Khanolkar discloses the die module of claim 1, wherein the antenna module (128) comprises a glass substrate ([0036]).
Re claim 8, Khanolkar discloses the die module of claim 1.
But, does not explicitly disclose wherein the antenna module (128) comprises a patch antenna, a vertical antenna, or a patch antenna and a vertical antenna.
However, Khanolkar discloses the use patch antennas mounted on multilayer package substrates ([0056]). Thus, it would have been obvious that the antenna module (128) would comprise a patch antenna for millimeter wave signals between 30 and 300 GHz have wavelengths of between 10 and 1 millimeters ([0056]).
Re claim 10, Khanolkar discloses the die module of claim 1.
But, does not explicitly disclose wherein the die (104) is a radio frequency (RF) die.
However, Khanolkar discloses the use multilayer package substrates for mounting antenna modules, the multilayer package substrates sized to be compatible with a patch antenna for millimeter wave signals between 30 and 300 GHz have wavelengths of between 10 and 1 millimeters ([0056]). Thus, it would have been obvious that the die (104) would a radio frequency (RF) die capable of accommodating a patch antenna for millimeter wave signals between 30 and 300 GHz have wavelengths of between 10 and 1 millimeters ([0056]).
Re claim 12, Khanolkar discloses in FIG. 1E a communications module (125), comprising:
a die (104; [0037]) with first pads (exposed portions of 114; [0037]); and
an antenna module (1081/1082; [0037]).
Khanolkar fails to disclose an antenna module with second pads, wherein individual ones of the first pads (exposed portions of 114) are directly contacting individual ones of the second pads, and wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with an individual one of the first pads and a corresponding individual one of the second pads.
However,
Gu discloses in FIG. 3 a bonded module comprising: a second pad (1131; [0026]) on a third surface (S2; [0026]) of a module (112; [0026]), wherein a bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131) is substantially coplanar (same height; [0026]) with the third surface (S2), and wherein a top surface (upper plane) of a first pad (1531; [0026]) of a die (152; [0026]) directly contacts (hybrid bonding at 1134/1534) the bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by adding the second pad of Gu to the antenna module of Khanolkar, eliminating the solder balls, such that the antenna module comprises second pads, wherein individual ones of the first pads are directly contacting individual ones of the second pads, and wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with an individual one of the first pads and a corresponding individual one of the second pads (see inserted figures above), eliminating the need to form an additional structure of connection circuits or connection interfaces, for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density (Gu; [0031]).
Re claim 13, Khanolkar discloses the communications module of claim 12.
But, fails to disclose wherein the first pads and the second pads comprise copper.
However, Gu discloses copper bonding components (1131/1151; [0026).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by using the copper bonding components of Gu as the first pads and the second pads of the communications module, achieving the expected results of a bonded low-resistance conductive interface, as part of the direct (hybrid) bonding for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density discussed for claim 12.
Re claim 15, Khanolkar discloses the communications module of claim 12.
But, fails to disclose, wherein the die (104) is hybrid bonded to the antenna module (1081/1082).
However, Gu renders these limitations obvious as part of the direct (hybrid) bonding for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density discussed for claim 12.
Re claim 16, Khanolkar discloses the communications module of claim 12, wherein the antenna module (1081/1082) comprises a glass substrate (claim 24 and as in FIG. 6 when 145/147 are glass; [0038] and [0059]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanolkar et al (US 2024/0038691 A1-of record, hereafter Khanolkar) in view of ELSHERBINI et al (US 2020/0273839 A1-of record, hereafter Elsherbini) and GU et al (US 2023/0130460 A1-of record, hereafter Gu).
Re claim 18, Khanolkar discloses in FIG. 1E an electronic system (125), comprising:
a board (123; [0037]); and
a die module (104/1081/0182; [0037]) coupled to the board (123), wherein the die module (104/1081/0182) comprises:
a die (104) with first pads (exposed portions of 114; [0037]); and
an antenna module (1081/1082), wherein the die (104) is coupled (by 133 as in FIG. 1C; [0035]) to the antenna module (1081/1082).
Khanolkar fails to disclose a package substrate coupled to the board (123); and the die module coupled to the package substrate, wherein the die module comprises: an antenna module with second pads, wherein the die is hybrid bonded to the antenna module so that the first pads are bonded directly to the second pads, and wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with one of the first pads and a corresponding one of the second pads.
However,
A. Elsherbini discloses in FIG. 1 an electronic system (100), comprising: a package substrate (102; [0047]) coupled to a board (133; [0047]); and a die module (114; [0032]-[0033]) coupled to the package substrate (102).
And,
B. Gu discloses in FIG. 3 a bonded module comprising: a second pad (1131; [0026]) on a third surface (S2; [0026]) of a module (112; [0026]), wherein a bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131) is substantially coplanar (same height; [0026]) with the third surface (S2), and wherein a top surface (upper plane) of a first pad (1531; [0026]) of a die (152; [0026]) directly contacts (hybrid bonding at 1134/1534) the bottom surface (bottom plane) of the second pad (1131).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by, first, adding the package substrate of Elsherbini, for mechanical stability and to facilitate connection to other components of the board (Elsherbini; [0001]). And second, adding the second pad of Gu to the antenna module of Khanolkar, eliminating the solder balls, such the die module comprises: an antenna module with second pads, wherein the die is hybrid bonded to the antenna module so that the first pads are bonded directly to the second pads, and wherein an antenna of the antenna module is vertically overlapping with one of the first pads and a corresponding one of the second pads (see inserted figures above), eliminating the need to form an additional structure of connection circuits or connection interfaces, for die modules with smaller chip area or higher chip density (Gu; [0031]).
Re claim 19, Khanolkar discloses the electronic system of claim 18, wherein the antenna module (1081/01082) comprises a glass substrate (claim 24 and as in FIG. 6 when 145/147 are glass; [0038] and [0059]).
Re claim 20, Khanolkar discloses the electronic system of claim 18, wherein the electronic system (125) is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device ([0003]), a tablet ([0003]), or an automobile (radar; [0003] and [0037]).
Claims 6-7; and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanolkar and Gu as applied to claims 1; and 12 above, and further in view of DELACRUZ et al (US 2020/0075553 A1-of record, hereafter Delacruz).
Re claims 6-7; and 14, Khanolkar and Gu disclose the die module of claim 1; and the communications module of claim 12.
But, fail to disclose wherein an interface (Gu: as in 1534/1134; [0026]) between the first pad (Khanolkar: exposed portions of 114) and the second pad (Gu: 1131) is seamless; wherein the first pad is diffusion bonded to the second pad; and wherein the first pads are diffusion bonded to the second pads.
However,
Delacruz discloses in FIG. 5F a bonded module comprising: wherein an interface (556; [0091]) between the first pad (547; [0091]) and the second pad (546; [0091]) is seamless (due to migration between 546/547; [0091]); wherein the first pad (547) is diffusion bonded (due to migration between 546/547; [0091]) to the second pad (546).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar by using the bonding process of Delacruz with the direct hybrid bonding of Gu, such that an interface (Gu: as in 1534/1134; [0026]) between the first pad (Khanolkar: exposed portions of 114) and the second pad (Gu: 1131) is seamless; the first pad is diffusion bonded to the second pad; and the first pads are diffusion bonded to the second pads, for that allows semiconductor wafers or dies to be bonded with exceptionally fine pitch 3D electrical interconnects (Delacruz; [0048]).
Claims 9; and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanolkar and Gu as applied to claims 1; and 16 above, and further in view of Khan et al (US 2018/0205134 A1-of record, hereafter Khan).
Re claims 9; and 17, Khanolkar and Gu disclose the die module of claim 1; and the communications module of claim 12.
But, fail to disclose wherein a redistribution layer is provided over the antenna module, and wherein an antenna is provided in the redistribution layer; and wherein a redistribution layer is provided on the glass substrate, and wherein an antenna is provided in the redistribution layer.
However,
Khan discloses in FIG. 7 (with references to FIG. 1) a communication module (600) comprising: wherein a redistribution layer (220; [0062]) is provided over an antenna module (130 as in FIG. 1; [0045] and [0047]), and wherein an antenna (200e; [0062]) is provided in the redistribution layer (220).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar and Gu, as a design choice (MPEP 2144.04), by configuring the antenna module such that wherein a redistribution layer is provided over the antenna module, and wherein an antenna is provided in the redistribution layer, as disclosed by Khan. The redistribution layer provided on the glass substrate of the antenna module of Khanolkar, and wherein an antenna is provided in the redistribution layer, forming Package-on-Package (PoP) structures reducing beam widths or forming a beam with different desired beam widths by using large antenna arrays (Khan; [0017] and [0019]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanolkar and Gu as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of ELSHERBINI et al (US 2020/0273839 A1-of record, hereafter Elsherbini).
Re claims 10-11, Khanolkar and Gu disclose the die module of claim 1.
But, fail to explicitly disclose wherein the die (104) is a radio frequency (RF) die; and wherein the die (104) comprises a group III-V semiconductor.
However,
Elsherbini discloses in FIG. 30 a die module component (600), comprising: a die (600; [0132]), wherein the die (600) is a radio frequency (RF) die ([0145]); and wherein the die (600) comprises a group III-V semiconductor ([0145]).
Thus, 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 structure of Khanolkar and Gu by substituting the die of Elsherbini for the die of Khanolkar, wherein the die is a radio frequency (RF) die; and wherein the die comprises a group III-V semiconductor, and adding the package substrate of Elsherbini, coupled to the board of Khanolkar, creating a high bandwidth with low radio frequency parasitics system-in-package (SiP) in which multiple dies having different functionality are included (Elsherbini; [0032] and [0145]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 8/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1; 12; and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation (i.e. FIG. 1E instead of FIG. 1C) of Khanolkar et al (US 2024/0038691 A1) for each of claims 1; 12; and 18.
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 ERIC W JONES whose telephone number is (408) 918-9765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 6:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights