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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 12/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is ‘configured to’ perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-8 and 11-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,848,480. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements found in the ‘480 patent are also found in the current application.
Claims 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,848,480 in view of Yenni (US 6,090,728).
Yenni discloses an EMI shielding layer disposed on a side of the carrier, wherein a portion of the EMI shielding layer is extended to the cladding element (e.g., column 10, lines 19-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Yenni regarding EMI shielding in order to suppress radiated emission (Yanni, column 1, lines 43-45).
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.
(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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rajanish (US 2010/0283700), hereinafter Rajanish.
Regarding claim 6 Rajanish discloses an electronic device comprising: a carrier (Fig. 3, at 102) having a first side edge and a second side edge opposite to the first side edge; an antenna element (Fig. 3, at 304 and 305; paragraph 0023) disposed between the first side edge and the second side edge in a plan view; and a cladding element (Fig. 3, at 309) covering the antenna element and configured to enhance antenna gain of the antenna element (paragraph 0020), wherein the cladding element includes a first portion extending from the first side edge to the second side edge and a second portion distant from the first side edge of the carrier (Fig. 3, at 309).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0148983), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 13 Lee discloses an electronic device comprising: a carrier (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 142) having a first surface; an antenna element (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 145) adjacent to the first surface; and a cladding element (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 188) covering the antenna element and including a plurality of portions separated from each other in a cross-sectional view (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 188 show a plurality of portions).
Regarding claim 14 Lee further discloses electronic device of claim 13, wherein the antenna element includes a plurality of antenna patterns (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 145) separated from each other, and a horizontal distance between adjacent pair of the plurality of antenna patterns is greater than a horizontal distance between adjacent pair of the plurality of portions of the cladding element (e.g., Fig. 8C, at 145 and 188).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanish in view of Lee et al., (US 2022/0148983), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 7 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the second portion has a first slant surface and a second slant surface opposite to the first slant surface, and the first slant surface faces the first side edge of the carrier in the plan view.
Lee discloses wherein the second portion has a first slant surface and a second slant surface opposite to the first slant surface, and the first slant surface faces the first side edge of the carrier in the plan view (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Lee regarding slanted portions in order to optimize refraction/diffraction/reflection characteristics of the RF signal to improve a transmission and reception rate or a gain of antenna (Lee, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 8 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the carrier further has a third side edge extending between the first side edge and the second side edge, and the second portion of the cladding element is more distant from the third side edge of the carrier than the first portion of the cladding element is.
Lee discloses wherein the carrier further has a third side edge extending between the first side edge and the second side edge, and the second portion of the cladding element is more distant from the third side edge of the carrier than the first portion of the cladding element is (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Lee regarding slanted portions in order to optimize refraction/diffraction/reflection characteristics of the RF signal to improve a transmission and reception rate or a gain of antenna (Lee, paragraph 0041).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanish in view of Yenni et al., (US 6,090,728), hereinafter Yenni.
Regarding claim 9 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 6, further comprising an EMI shielding layer disposed on a side of the carrier, wherein a portion of the EMI shielding layer is extended to the cladding element.
Yenni discloses an EMI shielding layer disposed on a side of the carrier, wherein a portion of the EMI shielding layer is extended to the cladding element (e.g., column 10, lines 19-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Yenni regarding EMI shielding in order to suppress radiated emission (Yanni, column 1, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 10 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the second portion of the cladding element is spaced apart from the EMI shielding layer.
Yenni discloses wherein the second portion of the cladding element is spaced apart from the EMI shielding layer (e.g., column 10, lines 19-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Yenni regarding EMI shielding in order to suppress radiated emission (Yanni, column 1, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 19 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 13, wherein a lateral surface of at least one of the plurality of portions of the cladding element is substantially aligned with a lateral surface of the carrier.
Yenni discloses wherein a lateral surface of at least one of the plurality of portions of the cladding element is substantially aligned with a lateral surface of the carrier (e.g., column 10, lines 19-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Yenni regarding EMI shielding in order to suppress radiated emission (Yanni, column 1, lines 43-45).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajanish in view of Heusmann et al., (US 2011/0062243), hereinafter Heusmann.
Regarding claim 21 Rajanish does not disclose the electronic device of claim 6, further comprising: a package body disposed over the carrier and having a first modulus, wherein the cladding element is disposed under the carrier, wherein the cladding element has a second modulus greater than the first modulus.
Heusmann discloses a package body disposed over the carrier and having a first modulus, wherein the cladding element is disposed under the carrier, wherein the cladding element has a second modulus greater than the first modulus (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna discloses by Rajanish in accordance with the teaching of Heusmann regarding using different modulus layer in order to allow one layer to have more significant bending than another layer (Heusmann, paragraph 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 15-18, 20 and 22-25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 11, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the antenna element includes a plurality of antenna patterns, the second portion of the cladding element includes a plurality of parts, and each of the plurality of parts of the second portion of the cladding element overlaps at least one of the plurality of antenna patterns of the antenna element in the plan view.
Rajanish and Yenni are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a an electronic device having a carrier, an antenna element, and a cladding.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 15, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein a portion of the first surface of the carrier is exposed by the cladding element.
Rajanish and Yenni are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a an electronic device having a carrier, an antenna element, and a cladding.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 20, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the carrier further has a second surface opposite to the first surface, and the electronic device further comprises: an electronic component disposed over the second surface of the carrier and electrically connected to the antenna element through the carrier; and a package body covering at least a portion of the second surface of the carrier and encapsulating the electronic component.
Rajanish and Yenni are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a an electronic device having a carrier, an antenna element, and a cladding.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 22, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the antenna element is disposed closer to the cladding element than to the package body.
Rajanish and Yenni are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a an electronic device having a carrier, an antenna element, and a cladding.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights