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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on June 2nd, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 19 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.
The term “at the face” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at the face” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill would not clearly be able to discern whether the antenna patch needs to be on the face, near the face, or whether other components can be between the patch and the face. To compare to the other independent claims which use the term “on the face” which clearly define the placement of the patch.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thai et al. (US 11011827 B2), herein referred to as Thai and further in view of Edwards et al. (US 20210075088 A1), herein referred to as Edwards.
Regarding claim 19, Thai discloses a communication device (fig. 29), comprising: a display (col. 2 lines 40-45); a back cover (col. 2 lines 40-45); and an antenna module (105) between the display and the back cover, wherein the antenna module includes: an integrated circuit (IC) die (115), an antenna substrate (100), and a stack of antenna patches (104-1, 104-2), wherein the IC die includes circuitry to control operation of the stack of antenna patches (col. 4 lines 15-19), an antenna patch (104-1) of the stack that is closest to the IC die is at the face (see fig. 29) of the IC die (115) and is in contact with one or more electrically conductive material pathways of the IC die (col. 4 lines 15-19), and an antenna patch (104-2) of the stack that is second closest to the IC die is on or in the antenna substrate (100).
Thai does not disclose wherein the second antenna patch of the stack is electrically isolated from the antenna patch of the stack that is closest to the IC die.
However, Edwards discloses a similar antenna wherein a second patch of a stack is electrically isolated from a first patch of a stack (para. 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the device of Thai wherein the second antenna patch of the stack is electrically isolated from the antenna patch of the stack that is closest to the IC die, as taught by Edwards, to widen the bandwidth of the antenna (para. 0091).
Regarding claim 20, Thai and Edwards render obvious all limitations of base claim 19.
Thai also discloses wherein at least one of the one or more electrically conductive material pathways of the IC die is further connected to the circuitry (col. 4 line 15-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Thai.
Thai discloses an antenna module, comprising: an integrated circuit (IC) component having a face; an antenna patch support over the face of the IC component; and a stack of antenna patches, wherein a first antenna patch of the stack is an antenna patch closest to the IC component, a second antenna patch of the stack is an antenna patch closest to the first antenna patch.
Thai does not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the first antenna patch is on the face of the IC component, and the second antenna patch is on or in the antenna patch support and electrically isolated from all electrically conductive material pathways in the antenna patch support and in the IC component.
Regarding claim 16, Thai is the closest prior art.
Thai discloses an electronic assembly, comprising: a package substrate; a die having a first face and a second face opposite the first face; an antenna substrate, wherein the die is between the package substrate and the antenna substrate, and the first face of the die is closer to the package substrate than to the antenna substrate; a first antenna patch; and a second antenna patch either in the antenna substrate or on a face of the antenna substrate, wherein a projection of the second antenna patch onto the package substrate at least partially overlaps with a projection of the first antenna patch onto the package substrate.
Thai does not teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the first antenna patch is on the second face of the die, and wherein there is no electrically continuously pathway that has one portion in conductive contact with the first antenna patch and another portion in conductive contact with the second antenna patch.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190372198, 20230208016.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights