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
Claim 27-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method claim, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 25th 2025. Elected claims 16-26 and 33-35 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, the “wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across four sidewalls and the second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor” as recited in claim 19 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 § 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) 16-18, 22-24, 26, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 20230006350 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 20220189959 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Arai et al. discloses an antenna package comprising a stacked arrangement of (Antenna module 100T and 100W as seen in figures 22-25 of Arai et al.):
a first substrate (Substrate 140 as seen in figures 22-25 of Arai et al.);
a first plurality of patch antennas arranged on a first major surface of the first substrate (Antenna modules include a substrate 140 that serves as a first substrate with patch antennas 121 serving as a plurality of first patch antennas wherein said patch antennas 121 can be arranged on a front face of a substrate if desired; Paragraph 54 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.);
a plurality of decoupling capacitors arranged on the first major surface, wherein at least one decoupling capacitor of the plurality of decoupling capacitors is located between adjacent patch antennas of the first plurality of patch antennas (Electrical components 176 are on a first major surface of substrate 140 and said components may be capacitors that are arranged between adjacent patch antennas of the first patch antennas such that said capacitors with vias v1 suppress radiation from the radiation elements and improve the isolation between radiating elements which in turns prevent coupling between them thus capacitors serve as decoupling capacitors; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.); and
a second substrate comprising a second plurality of patch antennas, wherein the at least one decoupling capacitor of the plurality of decoupling capacitors comprises a first terminal configured only to be in contact with the first substrate and a second terminal configured to be in contact with the second substrate (A substrate 130 serves a s a second substrate that comprises a plurality of second patch antennas 122 wherein the capacitors 176 comprise pads serving as terminals wherein one terminal of the capacitor connects to via v1 and is only in contact with the first substrate 140 and a second terminal connects to via v2 and is in contact with the second substrate 130; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.).
Arai et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Yang et al. does disclose a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate (Decoupling capacitor C comprises a first electrode E2 that is only in contact with a first layer 106 serving as a first substrate and a second electrode E1 that comprises a metal pillar formed by PP and RP that extends from a top surface of the electrode such that it covers two sidewalls and a top surface wherein a top surface connects to the first substrate 106 and a bottom surface connects to substrate like 104 with routing line 102 wherein said electrodes serve as terminals of the capacitor; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. to have a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate as taught by Yang et al. to connect the decoupling capacitor to different substrates and different electrical components and power supply (Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.) and since the configuration of the capacitor affects its performance.
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). It is further noted that the term “Decoupling capacitor” is unclear since the drawings and specifications fail to explicitly disclose exactly what a decoupling capacitor is and how it is different form a normal capacitor. Based on the paragraphs 43 the decoupling capacitor seems to be a “capacitor that reduces coupling between adjacent patch antennas” and will be interpreted as such.
PNG
media_image1.png
593
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Arai et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a first surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate.
However, Yang et al. does disclose wherein the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a first surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate (Decoupling capacitor C comprises a first electrode E2 that is only in contact with a first layer 106 serving as a first substrate and a second electrode E1 that comprises a metal pillar formed by PP and RP that extends from a top surface of the electrode such that it covers two sidewalls and a top surface wherein a top surface connects to the first substrate 106 and a bottom surface connects to substrate like 104 with routing line 102 wherein said electrodes serve as terminals of the capacitor; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. to have the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a first surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate as taught by Yang et al. to connect the decoupling capacitor to different substrates and different electrical components like a power supply (Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.) and since the configuration of the capacitor affects its performance.
Regarding Claim 18, Arai et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across two sidewalls and the second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor.
However, Yang et al. does disclose wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across two sidewalls and the second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor (Decoupling capacitor C comprises a first electrode E2 that is only in contact with a first layer 106 serving as a first substrate and a second electrode E1 that comprises a metal pillar formed by PP and RP that extends from a top surface of the electrode such that it covers two sidewalls and a top surface wherein a top surface connects to the first substrate 106 and a bottom surface connects to substrate like 104 with routing line 102 wherein said electrodes serve as terminals of the capacitor; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. to have the metal region of the second terminal extends across two sidewalls and the second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor as taught by Yang et al. to connect the decoupling capacitor to different substrates and different electrical components like a power supply (Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.) and since the configuration of the capacitor affects its performance.
Regarding Claim 22, Arai et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of decoupling capacitors is configured to form a ground wall between the adjacent patch antennas (Decoupling capacitors 176 work with via V1 to connect with the ground thus allowing the capacitors to serve as a ground wall that blocks/suppresses radiation and isolates the adjacent radiating elements as well as reducing the influence of outside electromagnetic fields; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 23, Arai et al. further discloses wherein a separation between the first substrate and the second substrate is defined by a height of the at least one decoupling capacitor (Separation distance between the first substrate 140 and second substrate 130 is defined by the height of at least one of the decoupling capacitors 176 as seen in figure 22 and 25 of Arai et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Arai et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of decoupling capacitors is arranged around a perimeter of each patch antenna (Capacitors 176 can be arranged around the perimeter of the patch antenna 121 and 122 to surround the antenna elements; Paragraph 154-156 and figure 25 of Arai et al.).
Regarding Claim 26, Arai et al. further discloses wherein each patch antenna of the first plurality of patch antennas is arranged below a corresponding patch antenna of the second plurality of patch antennas (First plurality of patch antennas 121 are arranged below the second plurality of patch antennas 122 as seen in figure 25 of Arai et al.).
Regarding Claim 33, Arai et al. discloses an antenna package comprising a stacked arrangement of (Antenna module 100T and 100W as seen in figures 22-25 of Arai et al.):
a first substrate (Substrate 140 as seen in figures 22-25 of Arai et al.);
a first plurality of patch antennas arranged on a first major surface of the first substrate (Antenna modules include a substrate 140 that serves as a first substrate with patch antennas 121 serving as a plurality of first patch antennas wherein said patch antennas 121 can be arranged on a front face of a substrate if desired; Paragraph 54 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.);
a plurality of decoupling capacitors arranged on the first major surface, wherein at least one decoupling capacitor of the plurality of decoupling capacitors is located between adjacent patch antennas of the first plurality of patch antennas (Electrical components 176 are on a first major surface of substrate 140 and said components may be capacitors that are arranged between adjacent patch antennas of the first patch antennas such that said capacitors with vias v1 suppress radiation from the radiation elements and improve the isolation between radiating elements which in turns prevent coupling between them thus capacitors serve as decoupling capacitors; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.); and
a second substrate comprising a second plurality of patch antennas, wherein the at least one decoupling capacitor of the plurality of decoupling capacitors comprises a first terminal configured only to be in contact with the first substrate and a second terminal configured to be in contact with the second substrate (A substrate 130 serves a s a second substrate that comprises a plurality of second patch antennas 122 wherein the capacitors 176 comprise pads serving as terminals wherein one terminal of the capacitor connects to via v1 and is only in contact with the first substrate 140 and a second terminal connects to via v2 and is in contact with the second substrate 130; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.).
Arai et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate wherein the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a bottom surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate, and wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across at least two sidewalls and the top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor.
However, Yang et al. does disclose a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate wherein the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a bottom surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate, and wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across at least two sidewalls and the top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor (Decoupling capacitor C comprises a first electrode E2 that is only in contact with a first layer 106 serving as a first substrate and a second electrode E1 that comprises a metal pillar formed by PP and RP that extends from a top surface of the electrode such that it covers two sidewalls and a top surface wherein a top surface connects to the first substrate 106 and a bottom surface connects to substrate like 104 with routing line 102 wherein said electrodes serve as terminals of the capacitor; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. to have a second terminal configured to be in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate wherein the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor comprises a metal region extending from a top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the first substrate to a bottom surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor that is in contact with the second substrate, and wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across at least two sidewalls and the top surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor as taught by Yang et al. to connect the decoupling capacitor to different substrates and different electrical components and power supply (Paragraph 33-40 and figure 2b of Yang et al.) and since the configuration of the capacitor affects its performance.
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). It is further noted that the term “Decoupling capacitor” is unclear since the drawings and specifications fail to explicitly disclose exactly what a decoupling capacitor is and how it is different form a normal capacitor. Based on the paragraphs 43 the decoupling capacitor seems to be a “capacitor that reduces coupling between adjacent patch antennas” and will be interpreted as such.
Regarding Claim 34, Arai et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of decoupling capacitors is configured to form a ground wall between the adjacent patch antennas (Decoupling capacitors 176 work with via V1 to connect with the ground thus allowing the capacitors to serve as a ground wall that blocks/suppresses radiation and isolates the adjacent radiating elements as well as reducing the influence of outside electromagnetic fields; Paragraph 56 and 134-156 as well as figures 22-25 of Arai et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 35, Arai et al. further discloses wherein a separation between the first substrate and the second substrate is defined by a height of the at least one decoupling capacitor (Separation distance between the first substrate 140 and second substrate 130 is defined by the height of at least one of the decoupling capacitors 176 as seen in figure 22 and 25 of Arai et al.).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 20230006350 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 20220189959 A1) and Blakely et al. (US 6618266 B2).
Regarding Claim 20, Arai et al. and Yang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a first reference voltage, and the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a second reference voltage.
However, Blackely et al. does disclose wherein the first terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a first reference voltage, and the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a second reference voltage (Decoupling capacitor C1 comprises a first terminal 107a connected to vias 110a/100d that couple the terminal to a first reference voltage in the form of a power plane on a first layer serving and a second terminal 106c that connects to vias 110c/110f which couple the second terminal to a second reference voltage in the form of a ground plane on a different second layer; Paragraph 2-10 and figure 3-5 of Blackely et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. and Yang et al. to have the first terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a first reference voltage, and the second terminal of the at least one decoupling capacitor is configured to be coupled to a second reference voltage as taught by Blackely et al. to lower the inductance loss of the circuit (Paragraph 4 of Blackely et al.) and to connect the decoupling capacitor to a voltage source and ground.
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image3.png
315
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Arai et al. and Yang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first reference voltage is a supply voltage and the second reference voltage is a ground.
However, Blackely et al. does disclose wherein the first reference voltage is a supply voltage and the second reference voltage is a ground (Decoupling capacitor C1 comprises a first terminal 107a connected to vias 110a/100d that couple the terminal to a first reference voltage in the form of a power plane on a first layer serving and a second terminal 106c that connects to vias 110c/110f which couple the second terminal to a second reference voltage in the form of a ground plane on a different second layer; Paragraph 2-10 and figure 3-5 of Blackely et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. and Yang et al. to have the first reference voltage be a supply voltage and the second reference voltage be a ground as taught by Blackely et al. to lower the inductance loss of the circuit (Paragraph 4 of Blackely et al.) and to connect the decoupling capacitor to a voltage source and ground.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 20230006350 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 20220189959 A1) and Hagn et al. (EP 3301757 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Arai et al. further discloses wherein each patch antenna of the first plurality of patch antennas and the second plurality of patch antennas has a shape selected from a square (Plurality of patch antennas 121 and 122 comprise a square shape as seen in figure 22 and 25 of Arai et al.).
Arai et al. and Yang et al. fail to disclose wherein each patch antenna of the first plurality of patch antennas and the second plurality of patch antennas has a shape selected from a square shape and a circle shape.
However, Hagn et al. does disclose wherein each patch antenna of the first plurality of patch antennas and the second plurality of patch antennas has a shape selected from a square shape and a circle shape (Antenna package 60 comprises a first antenna 14 and a second antenna 26 that may be formed as a plurality of antennas wherein the first antenna can have a circle shape and a second antenna can comprise a square shape; Paragraph 8-10, 34-36, and 63 as well as figure 4a of Hagn et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Arai et al. and Yang et al. to each patch antenna of the first plurality of patch antennas and the second plurality of patch antennas have a shape selected from a square shape and a circle shape as taught by Hagn et al. since the shape of the patch antenna would affect is radiating characteristics.
PNG
media_image4.png
403
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Regarding claim 19, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the metal region of the second terminal extends across four sidewalls and the second surface of the at least one decoupling capacitor” as recited in claim 19.
Arai et al. and Yang et al. are cited as teaching some of the elements of the claimed invention including an antenna package with a first substrate, a first plurality of patch antennas, a second substrate, a second plurality of patch antennas, decoupling capacitors, and a metal region.
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20240363556 A1 (Gossner; Harald et al.) discloses an antenna module that comprises a patch antenna structure with a coupling capacitor.
US 10833414 B2 (Kim; Nam Ki et al.) discloses an antenna module that comprises a patch antenna structure with a coupling capacitor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 E 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights