CTNF 18/234,832 CTNF 78030 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement In the instant application, several Information Disclosure Sheets (IDS) have been submitted to date citing a usual high number of irrelevant documents. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), affd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But of. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004. Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners examines. Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to " bury " it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQe2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972). The examiner is not afforded the time to thoroughly review each reference, given the number of references cited. By his initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 form(s), the examiner is relying that the Applicant has actually submitted these documents or that the USPTO internal systems has accurately generated string(s) that represent the US references submitted. The Examiner is not afforded enough time to even check that the references cited on the accompanying 1449 form(s) are being reviewed (see search list(s) for the US documents actually reviewed). With this vast number of references, the Examiner is able to perform at best, only a cursory review of the cited references. The Examiner believes that the Applicant spent more time generating the 1449 forms in the instant application, then the Examiner is allotted to review the references cited on these 1449 forms. The Examiner has reviewed cursorily each reference cited. Due to the high number of documents presented and the limited time provided for examination, the Examiner was unable to determined how material or not , each of the references is specifically related to the invention(s) claimed. Such factor should be highly taken into consideration for future litigation purposes, if any. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al in view of Jewula et al . Koo et al discloses, regarding, Claims 1, 17, A chip scale package comprising a substrate 102; a cavity 116 formed in or above the substrate (see Fig. 1), and a cavity roof 114 comprising a filler material. The problem to be solve appears to use a material with a low temperature coefficient value/range. Such modification would have been easily attainable by someone having ordinary skill in the art. For example, Jewula et al teaches having a substrate, cavity, and cavity roof SU with a low coefficient of thermal expansion in a range between 0 and 30 ppm/degree (ppm/degree) (see Fig. 3; 0054). It is also reminded that 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. Koo et al further discloses, regarding, Claims 2, 12, 16, the substrate includes a Silicon (Si) substrate [0106]. Claims 3, 13, the cavity roof includes a layer of a polymer with the filler material (since the roof is made up of a photoresist material; 0093). Claims 4, 14, 18, the cavity roof has a Young modulus in a range between 5 and 30 Terapascal (TPa) 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. Claim 5, 19, the chip scale package/ acoustic wave filter includes a cavity wall (inside surface of device 112) and an acoustic wave device including a piezo layer 102 and a functional layer 132, the cavity wall being separated from the piezo layer and the functional layer (see fig. 1). Claim 6, the chip scale package includes a cavity pillar 112. Claim 7, a Cu via formed at or through the cavity wall (see Fig. 1; 0103). Claim 8, a metal 2 (M2) layer arranged as a mechanical clamp to avoid delamination of a piezo layer, a functional layer, or both (see Fig. 1). Claim 9, the chip scale package includes a Cu layer 122 (Fig. 1; 0095) formed on the cavity roof. Claim 10, Cu vias extending through different layers of the chip scale package are at least pairwise relatively arranged along a straight line (see Figs. 3F, 3H). Claim 11, A method of forming a chip scale package comprising: forming a substrate 102; forming a cavity 116 in or above the substrate; and forming a cavity roof 114 including a filler material and having a low coefficient of thermal expansion in a range between 0 and 30 ppm/degree (see rejection for claim 1 above). Claim 15, A surface acoustic wave filter package (see abstract) comprising: a substrate 102; a cavity 116 formed in or above the substrate; one or more surface acoustic wave filters (see Figs. 12, 15) formed on the substrate; and a cavity roof 114 including a filler material and having a low coefficient of thermal expansion in a range between 0 and 30 ppm/degree (ppm/°) (see rejection for claim 1 above). Claim 20, A mobile device comprising a multiplexer including the surface acoustic wave filter package (see Figs. 10, 13). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the package/method/filter as disclosed by Koo et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Jewula et al for the purpose of improving the heat dissipation in acoustic wave devices. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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. /Julio C. Gonzalez/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2831 May 27, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 2 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 3 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 4 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 5 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 6 Art Unit: 2831 Application/Control Number: 18/234,832 Page 7 Art Unit: 2831
Prosecution Insights