DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090195334 A1 (Goi)
US 20130043954 A1 (Chow)
US 20200058706 A1 (Fig.2A, Fig.2B)
US 20210203372 A1 (Fig.3)
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant’s published specification para 23 describes what can be considered as disposed on a surface. Interpreting the amended claim in light of the specification Goi teaches the amended claim. Because the filters 12 and 13 are disposed to the offsite surface of Power amplifier 11 (para 35, Fig. 1 & 4) in the multilayered substrate.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goi in view of Chow.
Regarding Claim 1. Goi teaches a radio-frequency module [(para 47, 41, Fig.2)] comprising: a module substrate including a first major surface [(Bottom layer)] opposite to a second major surface [((top surface Fig.2B)] ): a plurality of electronic components including at least one passive component or at least one active component disposed at the first major surface and including at least one passive component or at least one active component disposed at the second major surface: [(Applicant’s published specification para 23 describes what can be considered as disposed on a surface. Interpreting the amended claim in light of the specification Goi teaches the amended claim. Because the filters 12 and 13 are disposed to the offsite surface of Power amplifier 11 (para 35, Fig. 1 & 4) in the multilayered substrate. )] and an external connection terminal for power supply (#30 connected to VCC1 and VCC2) disposed at the second major surface, wherein the plurality of electronic components include a first electronic component disposed at the second major surface, the first electronic component including an active circuit (#11) coupled to the external connection terminal for power supply, and a second electronic component (Capacitor 15) disposed at the second major surface [(“power amplifier IC 11, a chip inductor 14 and chip capacitors 15a to 15d mounted on the upper surface of the multilayered substrate 10”, par 47)] , the second electronic component including a capacitor coupled between a path connecting the external connection terminal for power supply to the active circuit and ground [(Fig.3; C24 is connecting the VCC terminal to the active circuit and ground. C24 is 15C or 15d)] , and the first electronic component is disposed closer to the second electronic component disposed at the second major surface. [(Fig.2B)]
Goi does not explicitly show that first electronic component is disposed closer to the second electronic component than any other electronic component
However, given that in Fig.3 C24 is directly connected to the amplifier, it would make reasonable design choice to lay it out as the closest, additionally, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chow teaches such capacitor is closest to the amplifier [(para 6 & Fig.3)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 2. The radio-frequency module according to claim 1, wherein the second electronic component is disposed closer to the first electronic component than any other electronic component disposed at the second major surface. [(Chow para 6 & Fig.3)]
Claim 3. The radio-frequency module according to claim 1, wherein the active circuit is a control circuit configured to control a power amplifier. [(Goi teaches power amplifier, control circuit is implied)]
Claim 5. The radio-frequency module according to claim 1, wherein the active circuit is a low-noise amplifier. [(while Goi or Chow does not explicitly shows LNA amplifier, examiner takes official notice that on it is well known the on the Rx side such as Fig.5 of Goi low noise amplifier is used, and such amplifier have a close capacitor as well)]
Claim 7. The radio-frequency module according to claim 1, wherein the active circuit is a power amplifier. [(Goi teaches power amplifier)]
Claim 8. The radio-frequency module according to claim 1, wherein the second electronic component is a semiconductor component. [(Goi teaches semiconductor capacitor)]
Claim 9-10, 12,14-15. See analyses of claims 1-3, 5 & 7-8
Claim 16, 19: See analysis of claims 1 & 8 and note a third electronic component such as inductor (Goi Fig.2B #14 L12 of Fig.3) and consider Chow showed the capacitor being the closest.
Claim 20. The radio-frequency module according to claim 16, wherein the module substrate is a multi-layer substrate. [(Goi Fig.2)]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights