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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there isn’t a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because different classification for the two claimed inventions is proof of serious burden in and of itself. As stated in MPEP 808.02, a serious burden is present when there is A) Separate classification thereof: this shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan et al US 2019/0115643.
Pertaining to claim 1, Khan teaches an integrated package, comprising:
a molded substrate 110 having a top substrate surface and a bottom substrate surface 841;
a semiconductor chip 120 embedded in the molded substrate;
a bottom antenna structure 843 disposed on the bottom substrate surface and electrically connected to the semiconductor chip See Figure 15; and
an antenna package 830a embedded in the molded substrate 110, and comprising:
an antenna package substrate 833; and
a top antenna structure 831 disposed on the antenna package substrate and configured for coupling electromagnetic energy [0021] with the bottom antenna structure See Figure 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 8, Khan teaches the integrated package of claim 1, further comprising:
a redistribution structure see Figure 15 marked up above formed on the bottom substrate surface 841, wherein the bottom antenna structure 843 is formed in the redistribution structure.
Pertaining to claim 10, Khan teaches the integrated package of claim 1, wherein the top substrate surface is above a top surface of the antenna package. See Figure 15
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al as applies to claim 1 above.
Pertaining to claim 9, Khan teaches the integrated package of claim 1, wherein the top antenna structure 831 is above the semiconductor chip 120 See Figure 15, but is silent with respect to the specific vertical distance between the top antenna structure and the semiconductor chip being equal to or greater than 5µm. However, Khan does clearly teach that there is a vertical heigh difference, and the scale of the device of Khan is commensurate with the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the heigh differential of the antenna and the chip through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the heigh differential is a result-effective variable (influences antenna waveguide/wavelength reception and interference) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chuang et al US 2019/0355680.
Pertaining to claim 2, Khan teaches the integrated package of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the antenna package substrate comprises a molding compound. Chuang teaches an antenna package Figure 2B, including wherein the antenna package substrate 141 comprises a molding compound [0033]. It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Khan and Chuang to enable the packaged antenna of Khan to be substituted for the packaged antenna of Chuang because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable devices for achieving the desired outcome (incorporating an antenna package into a device) and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Pertaining to claim 3, Khan in view of Chuang teaches the integrated package of claim 2, wherein the antenna package further comprises:
a cap passivation layer 153 (Chuang) disposed on the antenna package substrate 141 and covering the top antenna structure See Figure 2B 153 is the top of the structure (Chuang).
Pertaining to claim 4, Khan in view of Chuang teaches the integrated package of claim 2, wherein the antenna package further comprises:
a bottom passivation layer 153 disposed between the antenna package substrate 141 and the top antenna structure see Figure 2B (the top is the physical top of the entire antenna, the bottom of the passivation layer 153 is below the top surface). Note, claims 3 and 4 both depend from claim 1 and are in different claim branches, thus element 153 can be interpreted as both a “cap” and a “bottom” passivation layer (Chuang)
Pertaining to claim 6, Khan in view of Chuang teaches the integrated package of claim 1, wherein the antenna package substrate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) prepreg component and a PCB core component. [0033] Chuang
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Chuang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kamgaing et al US 2019/0333882.
Pertaining to claim 7, Khan in view of Chuang teaches the integrated package of claim 6 but fails to teach a solder mask layer disposed on the antenna package substrate and covering the top antenna structure. Kamgaing teaches an antenna element 127 on an antenna package substrate 125 and a solder mask layer 130 covering the top antenna element and the package substrate See Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Kamgaing into the device of Khan/Chuang by including a solder mask layer on the top of the elements. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Khan/Chuang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of protecting the antenna elements from environmental effects that would degrade operation [0038].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al US 10,937,719
Pertaining to claim 11, Khan teaches the integrated package of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the top substrate surface is flush with a top surface of the antenna package. Chiang teaches wherein the top surface of an antenna pattern AP/125 is coplanar and flush with a top surface of a top substrate 130 see Figure 3. Khan teaches where the antenna package is nearly flush with the top surface, base on the teaching of Chiang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to make the top antenna package flush with the top surface because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable arrangements of the antenna pattern with respect to a top surface of Khan and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Pertaining to claim 5, the prior art does not teach nor suggest either alone or in combination wherein the antenna package further comprises a cap passivation layer disposed on the bottom passivation layer and covering the top antenna structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817