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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpman et al., US 2020/0091608 (corresponding to US 11,414,539), in view of Alexander et al., US 7,138,815.
In re Claim 1, Alpman discloses a package structure 2000 (Fig. 20), comprising: a substrate 20001 defining a cavity 2003; and a module 2006 comprising a portion 2006 and a portion 2007, wherein the portion 20006 and the 2007 are disposed in the cavity 2003 of the substrate 2001 (Figs. 20; [0764 -0771]).
Alpman does not specify that the module 2006 is a power module, as well as that the portion 2006 is a power regulation portion and the portion 2007 is a noise filter portion.
Alexander teaches a package comprising power module 10 comprising a power regulation portion 18 and a noise filter portion 14 (Figs. 1 and 2; column 4, line 8 – column 8, line 5).
Alexander does not disclose the power regulation portion 18 and the noise filter portion 14 are disposed in the cavity of the substrate.
To reject a claim based on this rationale set forth in MPEP 2143 (B), Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case, examiner articulates the following:
(1) Alpman’s reference contains a package structure which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (the portion 2006 with a power regulation portion and the portion 2007 with a noise filter portion).
;
(2) Alexander’s package structure with is a power regulation portion 18 and a noise filter portion 14 and its functions were known in the art;
(3) Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art could have substituted one known element (Alpman’s portions 2006 and 2007 inside the cavity 2003) for another (Alexander’s power regulation portion 18 and noise filter portion 14), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, because Alexander’s device successfully functions;
(4) In view of the facts of the case under consideration, there appear to be no additional findings (re, e.g. long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success, etc.) needed, based on the Graham factual inquiries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 2: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 2 as: “the power regulation portion is configured to operate at a first frequency, and the noise filter portion is configured to operate at a second frequency higher than the first frequency”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
Claims 11 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re Claim 11, prior-art fails to disclose package structure “wherein the package structure defines a power path configured to provide a power signal to the electronic component, the power path comprises a first path portion extending from the power regulation portion to the noise filter portion and a second path portion extending from the noise filter portion to the electronic component, and a path length of the first path portion is greater than a path length of the second path portion.” Therefore, the claimed device differs from prior art devices on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
In re Claim 17, prior-art fails to disclose package structure “wherein the second capacitor is configured to operate at a frequency higher than that of the first capacitor, and the second capacitor is closer to an edge of the substrate than the first capacitor is.” Therefore, the claimed device differs from prior art devices on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights