DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 27, 28, 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehrer et al. (US Pub. 2012/0299170) in view of Aigner et al. (US Pub. 2004/0201090).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kehrer teaches a radio-frequency module (Figs. 3a-3c, 3e; para. 0017+) comprising:
a packaging substrate (302) (para. 0017-0018); and
a stack assembly mounted on the packaging substrate, the stack assembly including a surface acoustic wave device (304) (para. 0019, 0024) including a piezoelectric substrate (para. 0021) with first and second sides such that the first side is between the packaging substrate and the second side, a resin layer (307 and/or 312 (or 326 in Fig. 3e)) (para. 0025, 0027 – epoxy is a type of resin) on the second side of the piezoelectric substrate, and a die (308) positioned over the resin layer.
Kehrer is silent with respect to the die being a silicon die specifically.
Aigner teaches a similar device (Fig. 1) wherein the analogous die (15) is a silicon die (para. 0022).
Because Kehrer is silent with respect to the material of the die, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to look elsewhere to find a suitable material. Aigner discloses a suitable material for the die. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing use a silicon as the material for the die Keher as taught by Aigner because it has been established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Re claim 27, Kehrer teaches wherein the silicon die includes a radio-frequency integrated circuit (para. 0028-0029, claim 6).
Re claim 28, Kehrer teaches wherein the radio- frequency integrated circuit includes a low-noise amplifier (para. 0028-0029, claim 6).
Re claim 30, Kehrer teaches an overmold implemented over the packaging substrate to encapsulate the stack assembly (para. 0036).
Re claim 31, Kehrer teaches wherein the surface acoustic wave device includes a mounting side configured to allow the mounting of the surface acoustic wave device on the packaging substrate (Figs. 3a-3c, 3e).
Re claim 32, Kehrer teaches wherein the mounting side of the surface acoustic wave device includes a plurality of solder balls (Fig. 3e).
Re claim 33, Kehrer in view of Aigner teaches wherein the silicon die is configured to allow formation of a plurality of wirebonds (Kehrer 310) to provide respective electrical connections between the silicon die and the packaging substrate (Kehrer para. 0017).
Regarding independent claim 34, Kehrer teaches a method for fabricating a radio-frequency module (Figs. 3a-3c, 3e; para. 0017+), the method comprising:
forming or providing a packaging substrate (302) (para. 0017-0018); and
assembling a stack on the packaging substrate, the assembling including mounting a surface acoustic wave device (304) (para. 0019, 0024) having a piezoelectric substrate (para. 0021) with first and second sides over the packaging substrate such that the firs side is between the packaging substrate and the second side, implementing a resin layer 307 and/or 312 (or 326 in Fig. 3e)) (para. 0025, 0027 – epoxy is a type of resin) over the second side of the piezoelectric substrate of the surface acoustic wave device, and mounting a die (308) (para. 0026) over the resin layer.
Kehrer is silent with respect to the die being a silicon die specifically.
Aigner teaches a similar device (Fig. 1) wherein the analogous die (15) is a silicon die (para. 0022).
Because Kehrer is silent with respect to the material of the die, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to look elsewhere to find a suitable material. Aigner discloses a suitable material for the die. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing use a silicon as the material for the die Keher as taught by Aigner because it has been established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Re claim 35, Kehrer in view of Aigner teaches forming an overmold over the packaging substrate to encapsulate the stack assembly that includes the surface acoustic wave device, the resin layer and the silicon die (Kehrer para. 0036).
Re claim 36, Kehrer is silent with respect to “wherein at least some of the forming or providing of the packaging substrate, the mounting of the surface acoustic wave device, the implementing of the resin layer, the mounting of the silicon die, and the forming of the overmold is performed while in a panel format having an array of units, each unit corresponding to a radio-frequency module”; however, Aigner teaches these features (para. 0012-0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the device of Kehrer such that at least some of the forming or providing of the packaging substrate, the mounting of the surface acoustic wave device, the implementing of the resin layer, the mounting of the silicon die, and the forming of the overmold is performed while in a panel format having an array of units, each unit corresponding to a radio-frequency module as taught by Aigner for the purpose of cost effective mass production (para. 0016).
Re claim 37, Kehrer in view of Aigner teaches performing a singulation operation to separate the array of units into individual radio-frequency modules (Aigner para. 0016).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehrer et al. (US Pub. 2012/0299170) in view of Aigner et al. (US Pub. 2004/0201090), and further in view of Ueda et al. (US Pub. 2004/0189146) and Sugiura (US Pub. 2005/0093171) and.
Re claim 26, Kehrer is silent with respect to interdigital transducers; however, does disclose the second surface to be the active surface (para. 0024).
Ueda teaches the active surface of a SAW device to have interdigital transducers (Fig. 1A; para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the interdigital transducers disclosed by Ueda on the active (second) surface of the SAW devices of Kehrer for the purpose of providing for proper operation of the SAW device; that is, the transducer converts surface acoustic waves to electrical signals or vice-versa.
Sugiura teaches a similar device (Fig. 3, 4) wherein the inactive surface of a surface acoustic wave (SAW) device and an integrated circuit chip (or die) are bonded for the purpose of reducing the size of the module (para. 0011) such that the active surface of the SAW was between the packaging substrate (10a) and the die (12) (Fig. 3; para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the SAW device of Kehrer as taught by Sugiura such that the surface acoustic wave device is oriented so that the active surface side of the piezoelectric substrate is between the packaging substrate and the inactive side of the piezoelectric substrate to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of reducing the overall size of the module by eliminating the need to have the frame taught by Kehrer.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehrer et al. (US Pub. 2012/0299170) in view of Aigner et al. (US Pub. 2004/0201090), and further in view of Kikushima (US Pub. 2006/0261471).
Re claim 29, Kehrer in view of Aigner are silent with respect to wherein the radio- frequency integrated circuit includes a global positioning system (GPS) circuit.
Kikushima teaches a similar device wherein a radio- frequency integrated circuit includes a global positioning system (GPS) circuit (Fig. 1A, para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the radio-frequency module of Kehrer could be modified according to Kikushima such that it was a GPS module for the advantage of providing GPS capabilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has requested that double patenting objections be held in abeyance until the present application is in condition for allowance. The request has been accepted.
While Applicant has amended the claims, Applicant has provided no substantive arguments as to why the amended claims overcome the cited prior art for the Examiner to respond to.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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 Zandra Smith, can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899