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 .
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 8 and 20, the recitation “the plurality of top pads are disposed…” needs to be changed to “the plurality of top pads is disposed…”.
In claim 9, line 9, a comma is missing at the end of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0242896 A1, herein Kim).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kim discloses an electronic package (or a system) comprising: a first card comprising: a die 120a; an over mold 1152/1141/160/180/161/181 surrounding the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0182]; “The insulating layer disclosed herein may be implemented by a prepreg, FR4, a thermosetting resin such as epoxy resin, a thermoplastic resin, or a resin formed by impregnating these resins in a core material such as a glass fiber, a glass cloth, a glass fabric, or the like, together with an inorganic filler, Ajinomoto Build-up Film (ABF) resin, bismaleimide triazine (BT) resin, a photoimageable dielectric (PID) resin, a copper clad laminate (CCL), a ceramic-based insulating material, or the like.”); a plurality of top pads 1182 disposed on a top surface of the over mold, in electronic communication with the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0109]-[0111]); and a plurality of bottom pads in electronic communication with the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0115]-[0116], Kim inherently shows bottom pads that are connected to the vias 1193 and wiring layers 1192.).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 14, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 1, further comprising an interposer 601/600a/190, wherein the die and over mold are disposed on a top surface of the interposer and the plurality of bottom pads are in electronic communication with the interposer (Kim: Figs. 7A-8B and paragraphs [0068]-[0071], [0161]).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 1, further comprising a second card 110 comprising a plurality of bottom pads disposed on a bottom surface, wherein the second card is disposed above the first card such that the top pads of the first card are in electronic communication with the bottom pads of the second card (Kim: Figs. 8A-8B and paragraphs [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 3, wherein the first card comprises a plurality of beamforming integrated circuits and the second card comprises a plurality of radiating elements (Kim: Figs. 8A-8B and paragraphs [0043]-[0049]; Beamforming ICs are smart RF chips that steer signals electronically using multiple antennas, improving performance in modern wireless communication.).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 4, further comprising a plurality of amplifiers electronically interposed between the first card and the second card (Kim: Figs. 8A-8B and paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 3, wherein the first card and the second card comprise dielectric materials with different coefficients of thermal expansion (Kim: Figs. 8A-8B and paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0015], [0142]-[0145]; The key difference comes down to CTE- how much a material expands when temperature rises. In electronics packaging, mismatch between materials can create stress, warpage, and reliability issues. The CTE of resins are relatively high, about 30-80 ppm/ºC. The copper CTE is about 10-40 ppm/ºC. The CTE of ceramic-based insulating materials is low.).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Kim discloses the electronic package of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of top pads is disposed directly on the die without intervening vias (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0109]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses an antenna (Kim: paragraphs [0008]-[0012]) comprising: a first card comprising: a die 120a; an over mold 1152/1141/160/180/161/181 surrounding the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0113]-[0114], [0182]); a plurality of top pads 1182 disposed on a top surface of the over mold, in electronic communication with the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0109]-[0111]); and a plurality of bottom pads in electronic communication with the die (Kim: Figs. 4D, 8A-8B and paragraphs [0115]-[0116], Kim inherently shows bottom pads that are connected to the vias 1193 and wiring layers 1192.); and a second card 110 comprising: a plurality of radiating elements, a plurality of bottom pads disposed on a bottom surface, wherein the second card is disposed above the first card such that the top pads of the first card are in electronic communication with the bottom pads of the second card (Kim: Figs. 8A-8B and paragraphs [0043]-[0045]).
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 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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seler et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0225719 A1, herein Seler).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Kim does not specifically say the connection is done though elastomer pins.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seler teaches an electronic package, wherein the first card 12 and the second card 2 are connected via conductive elastomer pins 10 (Kim: Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0036], [0071]), as it is flexible, non-scratching, easy to replace, and suitable for high frequency application.
Therefore, given the teachings of Seler, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Kim in view of Seler by employing the elastomer pins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
March 28, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights