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 Species I (claims 1, 3-16 and 19-20) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I and Species II recite similar technical features. This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the restriction requirement of 10/9/25, the distinct groups do NOT share the same or corresponding technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, claim 8 reciting “a third conductive structure directly connected between the first antenna module and the conductive module” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 13 and 15 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 13 reciting “a fourth size” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis; a “third size” has not been defined in any of claims 1 and 9, from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 15 reciting “fourth conductive structure” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this claim will be read to depend on claim 8, which recites “a third conductive structure”.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable antenna package.
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 1, 3, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lasiter” (US 10685924).
Claim 1: Lasiter discloses an antenna package, comprising:
a first component module 210 (Fig. 2) having a top surface, a bottom surface and a first side surface between the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the component module has a first size (see Fig. 2);
a first antenna module 250 separated from the first component module and stacked on the top surface of the first component module, wherein the antenna module has a second size (see Fig. 2);
a first conductive structure 232 in contact with the top surface of the first component module and electrically connected (via 252) to the first antenna module (col. 4, ll. 60-64); and
a second conductive structure 220 in contact with the bottom surface of the first component module.
Lasiter is silent regarding the component module being passive.
However, it can be seen in Fig. 2 that the component module 210 doesn’t have active antenna elements (262, 282) of the antenna module 250 required for electromagnetic transmission and/or reception.
Nevertheless, Lasiter teaches “For example, the antenna package 250, the antenna package 350, the antenna package 450, the antenna package 550, the antenna package 650, and/or the antenna package 750 may constitute means for transmitting and receiving electromagnetic radiation.” (Col. 12, ll. 33-38.)
Lasiter further teaches “The die 212, the die 312, the die 412, the die 512, and/or the die 612 may constitute means for processing.” (Col. 13, ll. 1-3.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Lasiter’s component module as a passive module, in order to process electromagnetic radiation actively communicated by the antenna module.
Claim 3: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first antenna module extends from the top surface of the first passive component module to the first side surface of the first passive component module (see Fig. 2).
Claim 14: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a molding compound 234 filling a space between the passive component module 210 and the antenna module 250, wherein the first conductive structure 232 passes through the molding compound.
Claim 20: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first antenna module is fabricated without any passive component disposed therein, and the first passive component module is fabricated without any antenna disposed therein (see Fig. 2).
Claims 4-10, 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasiter (cited above) in view of “Dang” (US 9472859).
Claim 4: Lasiter fails to expressly teach a conductive module stacked on the bottom surface of the first passive component module and electrically connected to the first passive component by the second conductive structure, wherein the conductive module has a third size.
Dang discloses a conductive module 130 (Fig. 2) stacked on the bottom surface of the first passive component module 120A-C and electrically connected to the first passive component by the second conductive structure 150, wherein the conductive module has a third size.
Dang teaches “As is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the application board 130 can be formed of one or more substrates comprising one or more levels of metallization patterns and via structures to route the I/O signals, control signals, and power supply signals to and from the RFIC chip 120 as needed.” (Col. 4, third para.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lasiter’s invention to have a conductive module stacked on the bottom surface of the first passive component module and electrically connected to the first passive component by the second conductive structure, wherein the conductive module has a third size, in order to route I/O signals, control signals, and power supply signals to and from the passive component module as needed.
Claim 5: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 4, wherein the conductive module comprises:
a substrate (see Fig. 2 of Dang); and
an electronic component (“metallization patterns”) disposed on the substrate (col. 4, third para.).
Claim 6: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 4, wherein the conductive module extends from the bottom surface of the first passive component module to the first side surface of the first passive component module (see Fig. 2 of Dang).
Claim 7: Lasiter is silent regarding wherein the first passive component extends to cover adjacent surfaces of the conductive module.
However, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lasiter’s invention such that the first passive component extends to cover adjacent surfaces of the conductive module, in order to obtain desired dimensions of the antenna package.
Claim 8: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 4, further comprising:
a third conductive structure 140 (Fig. 1 of Dang) directly connected between the first antenna module 110 and the conductive module 130.
Claims 9-10: Lasiter fails to expressly teach a second antenna module disposed on the first passive component module and separated from the second conductive structure by the first passive component module;
wherein the first antenna module and the second antenna module are arranged side-by-side along a first direction, and the first direction is substantially parallel to the top surface of the first passive component module.
Dang discloses a second antenna module 110B (Fig. 2) disposed on the first passive component module and separated from the second conductive structure 150 by the first passive component module 120A;
wherein the first antenna module 110A and the second antenna module 110B are arranged side-by-side along a first direction, and the first direction is substantially parallel to the top surface of the first passive component module (see Fig. 2).
Dang teaches “The embodiments discussed herein are compatible with wafer scale level fabrication and integration, thereby enabling ease of manufacture of large phase array antenna structures. Moreover, multiple wafer level integration can be tiled (e.g., FIG. 2) to readily increase a number of antenna for use in phase-array antenna applications using a multitude of different chips integrated on a given carrier or application board to implement a phase-array antenna.” (Col. 9, second para.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lasiter’s invention to have a second antenna module disposed on the first passive component module and separated from the second conductive structure by the first passive component module, wherein the first antenna module and the second antenna module are arranged side-by-side along a first direction, and the first direction is substantially parallel to the top surface of the first passive component module, in order to obtain an antenna array for communication diversity.
Claim 13: As best understood, Lasiter is silent regarding wherein the second antenna module has a fourth size, and the fourth size is different from the first size or the second size.
However, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lasiter’s invention such that the second antenna module has a fourth size, and the fourth size is different from the first size or the second size, in order to obtain desired dimensions of the antenna package for effective transmit/receive operation.
Claim 16: Lasiter fails to expressly teach a second passive component module arranged side-by-side with the first passive component module, wherein the first antenna module overlaps and is electrically connected to the second passive component module, and wherein the second passive component module is electrically connected to a second antenna module arranged beside the first antenna module.
Dang discloses a second passive component module 120B (Fig. 2) arranged side-by-side with the first passive component module 120A, wherein the first antenna module 110A overlaps and is electrically connected to the second passive component module (via 130), and wherein the second passive component module is electrically connected to a second antenna module arranged beside the first antenna module (see Fig. 2).
Dang teaches “In the embodiment of FIG. 2, each package structure 202A, 202B, and 202C comprises a respective antenna package 110A, 110B, and 110C, bonded to a backside of a respective RFIC chip 120A, 120B and 120C. Each package structure 202A, 202B, and 202C is conceptually similar in design to the package structure (antenna package 110 and RFIC chip 120) discussed above with reference to FIG. 1. However, in the embodiment of FIG. 2, each package structure 202A, 202B, and 202C is a separate package that is bonded to the application board 130 so as to maintain antenna elements 114-1, 114-2, 114-3 and 114-4 at half-wavelength spacing. The embodiment of FIG. 2 is useful for a large antenna array SOI implementation by allowing the tiling of separate chips with half wavelength spacing. While some package structures (e.g., 202A and 202C) are formed with one antenna element (e.g., 114-1 and 114-4), other package structures (e.g., 202B) are formed with multiple antenna elements (e.g., 114-2 and 114-3).” (Col. 7, last para.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lasiter’s invention to include a second passive component module arranged side-by-side with the first passive component module, wherein the first antenna module overlaps and is electrically connected to the second passive component module, and wherein the second passive component module is electrically connected to a second antenna module arranged beside the first antenna module, in order to obtain an antenna array having desired (e.g., half-wavelength) spacing.
Claim 19: Lasiter teaches the antenna package as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first antenna module and the second antenna module are operated in different frequency bands and/or radiated directions, and wherein the first passive component module and the second antenna module comprises interconnect structures formed of different numbers of dielectric layers (col. 5, ll. 22-45 of Dang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 20200259267)
Jang (US 12316006)
Kim (US 11031675)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845