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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I and species 2 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification refers to elements 235 and 240 as the recess. It also refers to 235 as the trench. This confuses things when it comes to the claims as claim 4 states “wherein the trench is connected to the recess of the connection layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the part of a top surface of the connection layer is exposed by the antenna component (from claim 23), and “wherein a part of a top surface of the conductive element is exposed by the first portion and the second portion” (from claim 28) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the conductive element is in a ring shape in a top view”. This is not mentioned in the specification, the drawings, or the original claims. The only mention of a ring shape is in paragraph [0066], which refers to the shape of the recesses.
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.
Claims 23 and 28 are 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.
Claim 23 states “part of a top surface of the connection layer is exposed by the antenna component”. However, in every embodiment, the antenna component is not what exposes a top surface of the connection layer. The recess/trench is what exposes a top surface of the connection layer. It is unclear as to what the applicant is referring to in this claim, which makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 28 states “exposed by the first portion and the second portion”. However, there is a “first portion” and “second portion” of both the connection layer and conductive element. So, it is unclear if the claim is referring to the “first portion and the second portion” of the connection layer or the conductive element. Both options are not supported by the specification or the drawings, which further makes it unclear as to what exactly is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 21, 24, 26-27, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al. (US 2023/0307849, hereby referred as Hsieh).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising:
a circuit structure (element 10, figures 1-2); and
an antenna component (elements 401-405, figures 1-2) attached to the circuit structure by a connection layer (elements 200-220, figures 1-2),
wherein the connection layer includes a plurality of portions (elements CT1-CT3 separate element 220 into a plurality of portions spaced apart from each other, figures 1-2; alternatively, elements 210 and 220 can be construed as the plurality of portions spaced apart from each other) spaced apart from each other and configured to mitigate stress between the circuit structure and the antenna component (as shown in figures 1-2, paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the connection layer has a recess (elements CT1-CT3 portion in layer 200, figures 1-2) separating the plurality of portions of the connection layer, the antenna component is separated into at least two antenna units (elements 402-405, figures 1-2) by the recess (as shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna component (elements 401-405, figures 1-2) includes antenna units and a trench (elements CT1-CT3 portion in layer 220, figures 1-2) disposed between the antenna units and separating the antenna units, wherein the trench is connected to the recess of the connection layer (as shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 21, Hsieh as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein a width of the recess (elements CT1-CT3 portion in layer 200, figures 1-2) is less than a width of one of the at least two antenna units (elements 402-405, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 24, Hsieh as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of portions of the connection layer includes a first portion (portion of element 220 overlapping elements the antenna elements 401-405, figures 1-2) connecting the antenna component and the circuit structure, and a second portion (portion of element 220 not overlapping elements the antenna elements 401-405, figures 1-2) connected to the circuit structure and spaced apart from the first portion.
Regarding claim 26, Hsieh as referred in claim 24 teaches the following:
wherein the second portion of the connection layer (portion of element 220 not overlapping elements the antenna elements 401-405, figures 1-2) surrounds the first portion of the connection layer (portion of element 220 overlapping elements the antenna elements 401-405, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Hsieh as referred in claim 24 teaches the following:
further comprising a conductive element (layer 210 shows various conductive elements, some of which overlap both the first portion and the second portion, specifically the conductive element to the right of element 212, figures 1-2, paragraph [0032]) including a first portion embedded in the first portion of the connecting layer (portion of conductive element to the right of element 212 that only overlaps the antenna 222, figure 1) and a second portion embedded in the second portion of the connecting layer (portion of conductive element to the right of element 212 that only does not overlap the antenna 402, figure 1).
Regarding claim 29, Hsieh as referred in claim 27 teaches the following:
wherein the conductive element partially overlaps the antenna component vertically (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 31, Hsieh as referred in claim 27 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
wherein the conductive element (the conductive element to the right of element 212, figures 1-2, paragraph [0032]) is configured to be a ground terminal (“to route signals, ground, and/or power throughout the package”, paragraph [0032]).
Claims 1 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Arai (US 2022/0085502).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising:
a circuit structure (element 10, figure 12, paragraph [0051]); and
an antenna component (elements 22, figure 12) attached to the circuit structure by a connection layer (elements M1 and portion of 21 below the antenna components, figure 12),
wherein the connection layer includes a plurality of portions (element S separates the connection layer into a plurality of portions spaced apart from each other, figures 1-2) spaced apart from each other and configured to mitigate stress between the circuit structure and the antenna component (as shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 24, Hsieh as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of portions of the connection layer (elements M1 and portion of 21 below the antenna components, figure 12) includes a first portion (portion that does not overlap area S, figure 12) connecting the antenna component (elements 22, figure 12) and the circuit structure (element 10, figure 12), and a second portion (portion that does overlap area S, figure 12) connected to the circuit structure (element 10, figure 12) and spaced apart from the first portion.
Regarding claim 25, Hsieh as referred in claim 24 teaches the following:
wherein a thickness of the first portion (portion that does not overlap area S, figure 12) is greater than a thickness of the second portion (portion that does overlap area S, figure 12).
Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Haratani (US 2024/0055774).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising:
a circuit structure (element 10, figures 3-8); and
an antenna component (elements 21-23 and 31-33, figures 3-8) attached to the circuit structure by a connection layer (elements 24a and 24b, figures 3-8),
wherein the connection layer includes a plurality of portions (elements 24a and 24b, figures 3-8) spaced apart from each other and configured to mitigate stress between the circuit structure and the antenna component (as shown in figures 3-8, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 22, Hsieh as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a thickness of the connection layer (elements 24a and 24b, figures 3-8) is less than a thickness of the antenna component (elements 21-23 and 31-33, figures 3-8).
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.
Claims 3, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hsieh et al. (US 2023/0307849, hereby referred as Hsieh) in view of Slafer (US 2009/0136657).
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh as referred in claim 2 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
further comprising a stop layer disposed on the circuit structure, wherein the stop layer is covered by the connection layer and exposed by the recess.
Slafer suggest the teachings of the use of stop layers to prevent over etching (paragraphs [0060] and [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Hsieh include a stop layer disposed on the circuit structure, wherein the stop layer is covered by the connection layer and exposed by the recess as suggested by the teachings of Slafer in order to prevent the recess from extending too far into the connection layer which would cause the recess to be too large and may weaken the integrity of the device (paragraphs [0060] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 30, Hsieh as referred in claim 27 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
wherein the conductive element is free from electrical connection.
Slafer suggest the teachings of the use of stop layers, which are conductive elements free from electrical connection, to prevent over etching (paragraphs [0060] and [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Hsieh include a stop layer which is free from electrical connection as suggested by the teachings of Slafer in order to prevent the recess from extending too far which would cause the recess to be too large and may weaken the integrity of the device (paragraphs [0060] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 34, Hsieh as modified in claim 3 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna component (elements 401-405, figures 1-2) includes a lateral surface (the lateral surface of elements 401-405, figures 1-2) substantially perpendicular to a top surface of the stop layer (as explained in claim 3, the top surface of the stop layer would be perpendicular).
Claims 5 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (US 2023/0307849, hereby referred as Hsieh).
Regarding claim 5, Hseieh as referred in claim 1 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
wherein the antenna component includes a first dielectric layer and the circuit structure includes a second dielectric layer, wherein a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the connection layer and a CTE of the first dielectric layer is less than a difference between the CTE of the connection layer and a CTE of the second dielectric layer.
However, Hseieh does discuss the issue of a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the various dielectric layers. Having different coefficient of thermal expansion is also well-known in the antenna and integrated circuit art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the antenna component of Hseieh to include a first dielectric layer and the circuit structure includes a second dielectric layer, wherein a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the connection layer and a CTE of the first dielectric layer is less than a difference between the CTE of the connection layer and a CTE of the second dielectric layer as suggested by the teachings of Hseieh and well-known in the art as this can be used to further address the mismatch between the coefficients of thermal expansion to reduce the probability of warpage of the electronic device (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 32, Hseieh as referred in claim 27 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
wherein the conductive element is in a ring shape in a top view.
However, it is well-known in the antenna and circuit art that conductive elements can be various shapes, such as a rectangular, square, ring, etc.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conductive element of Hseieh to be in a ring shape in a top view as well-known in the antenna and circuit art, and since applicant has not disclosed that the shape of the conductive element solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a strip or rectangular shaped conductive element.
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (US 2023/0307849, hereby referred as Hsieh) in view of Tang et al. (US 2023/0282972, hereby referred as Tang).
Regarding claim 33, Hseieh as referred in claim 2 teaches the electronic device with the exception for the following:
wherein the recess has a step structure.
Tang suggests the teachings of wherein the recess (element 16, figure 1D) has a step structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recess of Hseieh to have a step structure as suggested by the teachings of Tang in order to improve the shielding effect and improve the warpage status of the device (paragraphs [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 35, Hseieh as referred in claim 4 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna component includes a plurality of antenna patterns,
Hseieh does not teach wherein the trench is configured to mitigate electromagnetic interference between the plurality of antenna patterns.
Tang suggests the teachings of wherein the trench is configured to mitigate electromagnetic interference between the plurality of antenna patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the trench of Hseieh configured to mitigate electromagnetic interference between the plurality of antenna patterns as suggested by the teachings of Tang in order to reduce any interference between the adjacent antenna patterns which would improve the performance of the antennas (paragraph [0035]).
Additional Comments
Regarding recitations throughout the claims that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the Office that such recitations are not positively recited structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case, the prior art references as applied herein are construed to at least possess such ability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights