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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 line 9, the phrase “a vertical direction” should read --the vertical direction--, since a vertical direction was introduced in line 3. Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14, and 21-22 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. in claim 10 line 9, the phrase “a vertical direction” should read --the vertical direction--, since a vertical direction was introduced in line 3. Claim 23 includes all the limitations of claim 10 and is objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601).
With regard to claim 1, Hitomi teaches, as shown in figures 3-5 and taught in paragraphs 48, 61, and 89: “An electronic component 100, comprising: a first circuit 111, 116, and 126, a second circuit 112, and an interconnection circuit 104; and an upper cover plate 101, a lower cover plate 102 opposing the upper cover plate 101 in a vertical direction Z, and an enclosure frame 103, wherein the upper cover plate 101 carries the first circuit, the lower cover plate 102 carries the second circuit 112, and the enclosure frame 103 is separately connected to the upper cover plate 101 and the lower cover plate 102; the interconnection circuit 104 is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, the interconnection circuit 104 is configured to implement interconnection between the first circuit and the second circuit 112, and the first circuit and the second circuit 112 overlap in the vertical direction Z between the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate without interfering with each other; in the vertical direction, a height of the enclosure frame 103 is higher than a sum of a height of the first circuit and a height of the second circuit 112; in the vertical direction Z, the upper cover plate 101 has opposite top (bottom side of 101 in figure 5) and bottom (top side of 1101 in figure 5) sides; the enclosure frame 103, the first circuit and the second circuit 112 are between the bottom side of the upper cover plate and the lower cover plate 102 and the electronic component further comprises a… board 4 on a top side of the upper cover plate 101 and electrically connected to the upper cover plate 101”.
Hitomi also teaches transceiver (TRX) circuitry on a board (portions of 101 used for transmission and receiving, as taught in paragraphs 48 and 89).
Hitomi does not teach the TRX circuitry on the board. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the TRX circuitry on the board that is connected to the top side of the upper cover plate since doing so would only involve change in the location of the TRX circuitry to the mounting board 4 connected to the cover plate and would allow the sending and receiving of signals. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 2, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in paragraphs 59-69: “further comprising: an integrated passive circuit 104 which is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, and is configured to transmit at least one of a direct current bias signal, a switch control signal, or radio frequency signal (paragraphs 59-69 teach the circuit for communicating an RF signal and connecting between the first and second circuits) between the first circuit and the second circuit 112”.
With regard to claim 3, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 2”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in paragraphs 59-69: “wherein the integrated passive circuit 104 comprises at least one of a power splitter or a coupling circuit”.
With regard to claim 7, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in paragraph 59: “wherein the first circuit comprises an auxiliary circuit device, and the auxiliary circuit device comprises at least one of a control circuit (paragraph 59 teaches the first circuit comprising control elements) or a bias circuit”.
With regard to claim 8, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 3-5 and taught in paragraph 61: “wherein the enclosure frame 103 extends around the first circuit and the second circuit 112 and in a view along a horizontal direction X perpendicular to the vertical direction Z, the upper cover plate 101 projects outwardly from the enclosure frame 103, the height of the enclosure frame 103 is entirely between the bottom side of the upper cover plate 101 and the lower cover plate 102, and an entirety of the… board 4 is above the top side of the upper cover plate 101, without being surrounded by the enclosure frame 103.
With regard to claim 11, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in paragraphs 49: “wherein the second circuit 112 comprises an electronic component matching circuit 11, a core radio frequency matching circuit 11, and an active chip 13”.
With regard to claim 12, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “wherein the second circuit 112 is a discrete device or an unpackaged active chip”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of Lim et al. (2012/0243195).
With regard to claim 5, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi does not teach: “wherein the enclosure frame comprises a metalized structure configured to shield a signal”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Lim teaches, as shown in figure 5 and taught in paragraphs 113-114: “wherein the enclosure frame 223 comprises a metalized structure configured to shield a signal”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lim with the invention of Hitomi in order to minimize electromagnetic interference (Lim, paragraph 113).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of Lim et al. (2012/0243195) and Hsieh et al. (2020/0329562).
With regard to claim 6, Hitomi as modified by Lim teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Neither Hitomi nor Lim teach: “wherein the metalized structure comprises an electroplated structure”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the metalized structure by electroplating, since electroplating is well known in the art (see Hsieh, paragraph 34).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of Moon et al. (2023/0371180).
With regard to claim 9, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 3-5 and taught in paragraph 45: “the upper cover plate 101 is a radio frequency board (paragraph 48 teaches the upper cover plate processing RF signals)”.
Hitomi does not teach: “and a land grid array (LGA), wherein the upper cover plate is connected to the TRX board through the LGA”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Moon teaches, as shown in figure 4 and taught in paragraphs 82-86: “and a land grid array (LGA) (taught in paragraph 86), wherein the upper cover plate 412 is connected to the TRX board 442 through the LGA”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Moon with the invention of Hitomi in order to make contact between the upper cover plate and the transceiver board (Hitomi, paragraph 86).
With regard to claim 10, Hitomi teaches, as shown in figures 3-5 and taught in paragraphs 48 and 61: “An electronic component 100, comprising: a first circuit 111, 116, and 126, a second circuit 112, and an interconnection circuit 104; and an upper cover plate 101, a lower cover plate 102 opposing the upper cover plate 101 in a vertical direction Z, and an enclosure frame 103, wherein the upper cover plate 101 carries the first circuit, the lower cover plate 102 carries the second circuit 112, and the enclosure frame 103 is separately connected to the upper cover plate 101 and the lower cover plate 102; the interconnection circuit 104 is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, the interconnection circuit 104 is configured to implement interconnection between the first circuit and the second circuit 112, and the first circuit and the second circuit 112 overlap in a vertical direction Z between the upper cover plate 101 and the lower cover plate 102 without interfering with each other; in the vertical direction Z, a height of the enclosure frame 103 is higher than a sum of a height of the first circuit and a height of the second circuit 112; the electronic component further comprises: a… board 4 on which the upper cover plate 101 is disposed… the upper cover plate 101 is a radio frequency board (paragraph 48 teaches the upper cover plate processing RF signals)… the enclosure frame 103 extends around the first circuit and the second circuit 112 and in a view along a horizontal direction X perpendicular to the vertical direction Z, the upper cover plate 101 projects outwardly from the enclosure frame 104 and the… board 4 projects further outwardly from a periphery of the upper cover plate”.
Hitomi also teaches transceiver (TRX) circuitry on a board (portions of 101 used for transmission and receiving, as taught in paragraphs 48 and 89).
Hitomi does not teach the TRX circuitry on the board. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the TRX circuitry on the board that is connected to the top side of the upper cover plate since doing so would only involve change in the location of the TRX circuitry to the mounting board 4 connected to the cover plate and would allow the sending and receiving of signals. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Hitomi also does not teach: “and a land grid array (LGA)… and the upper cover plate is connected to the TRX board through the LGA”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Moon teaches, as shown in figure 4 and taught in paragraphs 82-86: “further comprising: a land grid array (LGA) (taught in paragraph 86)… and the upper cover plate 412 is connected to the TRX board 442 through the LGA”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Moon with the invention of Hitomi in order to make contact between the upper cover plate and the transceiver board (Hitomi, paragraph 86).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of De Filippis (11,894,732).
With regard to claim 13, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Hitomi nor Hoang teach: “further comprising: a radiator on which the lower cover plate is disposed”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, De Filippis teaches, as shown in figure 2: “further comprising: a radiator 7 on which the lower cover plate 9 is disposed”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of De Filippis with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Hoang in order to prevent overheating.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of De Filippis (11,894,732) and Schulz et al. (2009/0140399).
With regard to claim 14, Hitomi as modified by De Filippis teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 13”, as shown above.
De Filippis also teaches, as shown in figure 2: “further comprising: a… block 20 disposed between the lower cover plate 9 and the radiator 7”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of De Filippis with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Hoang and De Filippis in order to prevent overheating.
Neither Hitomi nor Hoang nor De Filippis teach the block being sintered. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the block using sintering, since sintering is well known in the art (Schulz, paragraph 33).
Claims 15-16 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of Watts et al. (9,673,164).
With regard to claim 15, Hitomi teaches, as shown in figures 3-5 and taught in paragraphs 59-69: “An electronic device 1, comprising an electronic component 100, the electronic component 100 comprising: a first circuit 111, 116, and 126, a second circuit 112, and an interconnection circuit 104; and an upper cover plate 101, a lower cover plate 102 opposing the upper cover plate 101 in a vertical direction Z, and an enclosure frame 103, wherein the upper cover plate 101 carries the first circuit, the lower cover plate 102 carries the second circuit 112, and the enclosure frame 104 is separately connected to the upper cover plate 101 and the lower cover plate 102; the interconnection circuit 104 is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, the interconnection circuit 103 is configured to implement interconnection between the first circuit and the second circuit 112, and the first circuit and the second circuit 112 overlap in the vertical direction Z without interfering with each other; and a height of the enclosure frame 103 is higher than a sum of a height of the first circuit and a height of the second circuit 112, the electronic component further comprises: an integrated passive circuit 104 which is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, and is configured to transmit at least one signal between the first circuit and the second circuit 112”.
Hitomi does not teach the integrated passive circuit comprising a power splitter.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Watts teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51, an integrated circuit 10 comprising a power splitter 28. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
With regard to claim 16, Hitomi as modified by Watts teaches: “The electronic device according to claim 15”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “wherein the electronic device 1001 is a power amplifier 16”.
With regard to claim 21, Hitomi teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “further comprising: an integrated passive circuit 104 which is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, and is configured to transmit at least one signal (paragraphs 59-69 teach the circuit for communicating a signal and connecting between the first and second circuits) between the first circuit and the second circuit 112”.
Hitomi does not teach the integrated passive circuit comprising a power splitter.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Watts teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51, an integrated circuit 10 comprising a power splitter 28. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
With regard to claim 22, Hitomi as modified by Watts teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 21”, as shown above.
Watts also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51: “wherein the power splitter 46 is further configured to combine energy of multiple signals 40 and 44 into one output 48”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Watts in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths and recombine the resulting signals (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
With regard to claim 24, Hitomi as modified by Watts teaches: “The electronic device according to claim 15”, as shown above.
Watts teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51: “wherein the power splitter is configured to split energy of one input signal into two 32 and 36 or more outputs with equal or unequal energy”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Watts in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
With regard to claim 25, Hitomi as modified by Watts teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 21”, as shown above.
Watts also teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51: “wherein the power splitter 46 is further configured to combine energy of multiple signals 40 and 44 into one output 48”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Hoang in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths and recombine the resulting signals (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitomi et al. (2018/0190601) in view of Moon et al. (2023/0371180) and Watts et al. (9,673,164).
With regard to claim 23, Hitomi as modified by Moon teaches: “The electronic component according to claim 10”, as shown above.
Hitomi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “further comprising: an integrated passive circuit 104 which is disposed in the enclosure frame 103, and is configured to transmit at least one signal (paragraphs 59-69 teach the circuit for communicating a signal and connecting between the first and second circuits) between the first circuit and the second circuit 112”.
Neither Hitomi nor Moon teaches the integrated passive circuit comprising a power splitter.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Watts teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in column 3 lines 27-51, an integrated circuit 10 comprising a power splitter 28. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Watts with the invention of Hitomi as modified by Moon in order to send an input signal along two different circuit paths (Watts, column 3 lines 27-51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the primary reference does not teach the TRX board being located on the top side of the upper cover plate. In response, the Examiner has amended the rejection of claim 1, since changing the location of circuitry is an obvious modification of the primary reference Hitomi. Similarly with regard to claim 10, the argued features of a TRX board on a top side of the upper cover plate that extends further outward horizontally from the enclosure frame are an obvious modification of the primary reference. With regard to claim 15, the Applicant argues that the combination of Watts with Hitomi does not teach the integrated passive circuit including a power splitter in an enclosure frame. However, Hitomi is cited for teaching circuitry in an enclosure frame and combining the power splitter circuitry with Hitomi produces the power splitter circuitry in the enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831