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 .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 4/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. claim 3: The phrase “for pickup by the machine with some dies of different orientations adjacent to each other” as recited in line 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in lines 2-3, there are the plurality of dies including groups of dies oriented in different orientations. It is unclear as to whether the some dies are from the groups of dies or different dies from the plurality of dies oriented in different orientations.
Re. claim 5: The phrase “for pickup by the machine with some dies of different orientations adjacent to each other” as recited in lines 2-3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in lines 1-2, there are the plurality of dies including groups of dies oriented in different orientations. It is unclear as to whether the some dies are from the groups of dies or different dies from the plurality of dies oriented in different orientations.
In addition, the phrase “wherein the plurality of dies includes groups of dies oriented in different orientations and the plurality of dies are in an order for pickup by the machine with some dies of different orientations adjacent to each other in the order have orientations that are rotated 180 degrees with respect to each other” as recited in lines 1-4 are run-on sentence. It makes the sentence confusing. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 10: The phrase “wherein antenna elements of the plurality of antenna elements are designed” as recited in lines 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It appears to be that the “antenna elements” and the “plurality of antenna elements” are same limitations. Clarification is required.
The phrase “the radio-frequency (RF) element rotation” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 11: The phrase “wherein the antenna aperture comprises” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the antenna aperture is indicated the at least one portion of the antenna aperture or not. Clarification is required.
Re. claim 13: The phrase “wherein bond pads of each RF antenna element are” as recited in lines 1-2 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the each RF antenna element is indicated either one of the plurality of RF antenna elements and the subset of RF antenna elements or both.
Re. claim 32: The phrase “for pickup by the machine with some dies of different orientations adjacent to each other” as recited in line 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in lines 2-3, there are the plurality of dies including groups of dies oriented in different orientations. It is unclear as to whether the some dies are from the groups of dies or different dies from the plurality of dies oriented in different orientations.
Re. claim 33: The phrase “for pickup by the machine with some dies of different orientations adjacent to each other” as recited in lines 2-3 renders the claim vague and indefinite. According to the limitation as recited in lines 1-2, there are the plurality of dies including groups of dies oriented in different orientations. It is unclear as to whether the some dies are from the groups of dies or different dies from the plurality of dies oriented in different orientations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 30-34 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/24/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1-15 and 30-35 is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights