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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 3, Applicant argues that “Garcia fails to teach or render obvious a different dielectric constant for a first and second layer, as recited by claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Garcia et al. as shown in the rejection below teaches “Those of ordinary skill in the art readily understand that the antenna performance parameters such as antenna radiation efficiency and bandwidth and operating resonant frequency will vary depending on the dielectric constant, loss tangent, and thickness of the dielectric/insulating materials that form the substrate layers. Moreover, the size and structure of the various radiating elements of the antennas shown in drawings will determine the resonant frequency of the antenna, as is well understood to those of ordinary skill in the art” Par. 0117, and “In general, the resonant frequencies of the first and second aperture-coupled cavity antennas 611 and 612 is a function of the length, width and depth of the antennas structures (as defined by the metalized via holes 615 and ground plane 640), as well as the dielectric constant of the portions of the dielectric material 613 and 614 forming the antennas 611 and 612” Par. 0055; therefore it is understood that the dielectric constant of the dielectric layers is different for different resonant frequencies of the antenna structures.
On Page 4, Applicant argues that “Garcia fails to teach or render obvious a first antenna that transmits/receives in a first frequency band and second antenna that transmits/receives in a second frequency band lower than the first frequency band, as recited by claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Garcia et al. as shown in the rejection below teaches “Those of ordinary skill in the art readily understand that the antenna performance parameters such as antenna radiation efficiency and bandwidth and operating resonant frequency will vary depending on the dielectric constant, loss tangent, and thickness of the dielectric/insulating materials that form the substrate layers. Moreover, the size and structure of the various radiating elements of the antennas shown in drawings will determine the resonant frequency of the antenna, as is well understood to those of ordinary skill in the art” Par. 0117, and “In general, the resonant frequencies of the first and second aperture-coupled cavity antennas 611 and 612 is a function of the length, width and depth of the antennas structures (as defined by the metalized via holes 615 and ground plane 640), as well as the dielectric constant of the portions of the dielectric material 613 and 614 forming the antennas 611 and 612” Par. 0055, and “for a 60 GHz application, each of the first, second and third substrates 1012, 1016, and 1020 can be fabricated using a hydrocarbon ceramic laminate with a thickness of about 4 mils (or less for higher operating frequencies)” Par. 0074, and “for higher operating frequencies, the thickness of the layers 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, and 1020 will decrease” Par. 0074; therefore it is understood that different frequency bands of operation such as 60 GHz and higher would have been obvious based on the antenna structure in order to operate in multiple frequency bands as shown in the rejection below.
On Page 5, Applicant argues that “Fukuura fails to teach or render obvious the first dielectric layer having a larger area than the second dielectric layer in plan view, as required by the claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fukuura et al. teaches “a plurality of antenna boards respectively provided with the antenna elements which differ in the operation frequencies may be integrally mounted on a surface of the demultiplexer board” Col. 3 L. 34-37; and Fig. 7 which shows two different frequencies of operation 2.5 GHz and 5.8 GHz Col. 7 L. 64-67; therefore it is understood that the two different antennas operate at different frequencies which implies that they are different in size which would render the limitation “the first dielectric layer has a larger area than the second dielectric layer in a plan view of the substrate” obvious as shown in the rejection below.
On Page 5, Applicant argues that “one would not modify Garcia as alleged, and thus the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious a second dielectric constant is greater than a first dielectric constant, as recited by claim 2”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in sections a & b above, providing the second dielectric constant to be greater than the first dielectric constant would have been obvious based on the different frequency bands for the respective antennas.
On Page 6 with regards to claim 15, Applicant argues that “Garcia fails to teach or render obvious the second dielectric layer and the radio frequency circuit are disposed adjacent to each other on the surface of the first dielectric layer, as recited by claim 2”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since claim 15 does not require each of the second dielectric layer and the radio frequency circuit to be disposed adjacent to each other directly on the surface of the first dielectric layer; the second dielectric layer (120) of Garcia et al. and the radio frequency circuit (130) are disposed adjacent (nearby/close to each other) to each other on the surface of the first dielectric layer (110) as seen in Fig. 1. Additionally, it appears that the limitation “the surface of the first dielectric layer” lacks exact antecedent basics since “a surface” of the first dielectric layer was not previously recited.
On Page 7, Applicant argues that “the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious a filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer, as recited by claim 16”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Soutiaguine et al. is only relied upon for claims 4, 8 & 18 as shown in the rejection, not claim 16 or its preceding claims 1 & 2; and the argument presented with regards to the antennas overlapping in a plan view is not commensurate with the limitations of a filter circuit of claim 16. Nonetheless, if the argument was intended towards claim 4, the combination would have been obvious as shown in the rejection below since the antenna module of Garcia et al. was modified in claim 1 for different/multiple frequency bands. Alternatively, if the argument was intended towards claim 16, and as shown in the rejection below, the filter circuit (passive circuit elements) of Par. 0030 of Garcia et al. are included in the radio frequency circuit (130) which is already disposed on the second dielectric layer (120) of the substrate (100) as seen in Fig. 1 and would have been obvious in order to block unwanted signals. Thus the rejection is maintained. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/23/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,003,014 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the surface of the first dielectric layer" in the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-17, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317418 (cited by applicant) and Fukuura et al. US Patent 6,556,169 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia et al. teaches an antenna module (Figs. 1-3B, 10-12) comprising:
a substrate (100 Fig. 1 Par. 0028, 0029 / 200 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) that includes a first dielectric layer (110 Fig. 1 Par. 0028, 0029 / 220 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) and a second dielectric layer (120 Fig. 1 Par. 0028, 0029 / 210 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037);
a first antenna (112 Fig. 1 Par. 0028 / 221 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) that is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer and that transmits and receives a signal (Par. 0006, 0065);
a second antenna (122 Fig. 1 Par. 0028 / 211 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) that is disposed on or in the second dielectric layer and that transmits and receives a signal (Par. 0006, 0065); and
a radio frequency circuit (130 Fig. 1 Par. 0028 / 230 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) that is disposed on or in the substrate (Figs. 1-2B), and that is electrically connected to the first antenna (Figs. 1-2B).
Garcia et al. does not explicitly teach a first dielectric constant, and a second dielectric constant, the second dielectric constant being different from the first dielectric constant; a first frequency band, a second frequency band which is a lower frequency band than the first frequency band; wherein the first dielectric layer has a larger area than the second dielectric layer in a plan view of the substrate.
However, Garcia et al. teaches “Those of ordinary skill in the art readily understand that the antenna performance parameters such as antenna radiation efficiency and bandwidth and operating resonant frequency will vary depending on the dielectric constant, loss tangent, and thickness of the dielectric/insulating materials that form the substrate layers. Moreover, the size and structure of the various radiating elements of the antennas shown in drawings will determine the resonant frequency of the antenna, as is well understood to those of ordinary skill in the art” Par. 0117; and teaches that certain components / antenna elements can require large areas on the surface of the substrate (Par. 0114).
Additionally, Fukuura et al. teaches wherein the first dielectric layer has a larger area than the second dielectric layer in a plan view of the substrate (dielectric board 1b has larger area than dielectric board 1a in a plan view as seen in Figs. 1, 2 Col. 4 L 66).
In this particular case, providing the substrate dielectric layers with different dielectric constants and the first and second antennas to operate in different frequency bands of operation is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Garcia et al. Par. 0117. Additionally, providing the first dielectric layer to have a larger area than the second dielectric layer in a plan view of the substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Fukuura et al. to accommodate the larger antenna as seen in Figs. 1, 2.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first and second dielectric layers with different dielectric constants, and the first and second antennas to operate in different frequency bands of operation based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to obtain an efficient antenna performance in desired multiple frequency bands of operations; and to provide the first dielectric layer to have a larger area than the second dielectric layer in a plan view of the substrate based on the teachings of Fukuura et al. as a result effect in order to accommodate more and/or larger components such as a larger antenna.
Regarding Claim 2, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. is silent on wherein the second dielectric constant is greater than the first dielectric constant.
However, Garcia et al. teaches “Those of ordinary skill in the art readily understand that the antenna performance parameters such as antenna radiation efficiency and bandwidth and operating resonant frequency will vary depending on the dielectric constant, loss tangent, and thickness of the dielectric/insulating materials that form the substrate layers. Moreover, the size and structure of the various radiating elements of the antennas shown in drawings will determine the resonant frequency of the antenna, as is well understood to those of ordinary skill in the art” Par. 0117.
In this particular case, providing the dielectric layers with different dielectric constant is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Garcia et al. Par. 0117.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second dielectric constant to be greater than the first dielectric constant based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to obtain an efficient antenna performance.
Regarding Claim 3, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a ground layer (114 Fig. 1 Par. 0028 / 227 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0037) is disposed between the first antenna and the second antenna (Figs. 1-2B), the first antenna and the second antenna opposing to each other (Figs. 1-2B).
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a connector electrically connected to the second antenna is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer (213 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a connector electrically connected to the second antenna is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer (213 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 7, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a connector electrically connected to the second antenna is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer (213 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 14, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. is silent on further comprising a filter circuit configured to allow at least the signal in the first frequency band to pass therethrough, the filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer.
However, Garcia et al. teaches passive circuit elements Par. 0030.
In this particular case, providing a filter to allow the desired frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art to filter out unwanted signals/frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide passive circuit elements such as a filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to block unwanted signals.
Regarding Claim 15, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein the second dielectric layer and the radio frequency circuit are disposed adjacent to each other on the surface of the first dielectric layer (Fig. 1 as modified in claim 15 above), and wherein the antenna module includes a signal path (136, 126, 116 Fig. 1 Par. 0033) that is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer and that connects the first antenna, the filter circuit, and the radio frequency circuit (Fig. 1 Par. 0033).
Regarding Claim 16, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 2 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. is silent on further comprising a filter circuit configured to allow at least the signal in the first frequency band to pass therethrough, the filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer.
However, Garcia et al. teaches passive circuit elements Par. 0030.
In this particular case, providing a filter to allow the desired frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art to filter out unwanted signals/frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide passive circuit elements such as a filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to block unwanted signals.
Regarding Claim 17, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 3 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. is silent on further comprising a filter circuit configured to allow at least the signal in the first frequency band to pass therethrough, the filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer.
However, Garcia et al. teaches passive circuit elements Par. 0030.
In this particular case, providing a filter to allow the desired frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art to filter out unwanted signals/frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide passive circuit elements such as a filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to block unwanted signals.
Regarding Claims 19 & 20, Garcia et al. as modified teaches a communication device comprising: the antenna module according to claim 1 / claim 2, respectively, (as shown in the rejection above),
a mother board (140 Fig. 1 Par. 0028);
a millimeter wave circuit (DC power, I/O interconnect to transmit I/O or control signals between the RFIC chip 130 and the application board 140 Par. 0033) that is disposed on or in the mother board and is connected to the antenna module (Par. 0033).
Additionally, Garcia et al. teaches “various types of antenna designs can be implemented as discussed above to transmit and/or receive broadside and end-fire radiation. Although embodiment of antenna packages discussed herein depict two or three substrates, antenna packages can be constructed with four or more substrates, depending on the intended application. Moreover, although the embodiments discussed herein show the use of two or four antennas for broadside and end-fire radiations, additional antenna elements can be included to achieve increased antenna gain or to implement phased array antenna structures” (Par. 0116).
Garcia et al. is silent on a microwave circuit that is disposed on or in the mother board and is connected to the antenna module.
However, Fukuura et al. teaches wireless communications in microwave frequencies such as 2.5 GHz and 5.8 GHz (Col. 7 L 65-66 Fig. 7)
In this particular case, providing a microwave circuit connected to the antenna module is common and well known in the art in order to operate in microwave frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the communication device with a microwave circuit connected to the antenna module based on the teachings of Garcia et al. and Fukuura et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communications in microwave frequencies such as 2.5 GHz and 5.8 GHz.
Claims 4, 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317418 (cited by applicant) and Fukuura et al. US Patent 6,556,169 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Soutiaguine et al. US Patent Application Publication 2004/0056803.
Regarding Claim 4, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least part of the first antenna is disposed in a region overlapping with the second antenna in the plan view.
However, Soutiaguine et al. teaches wherein at least part of the first antenna is disposed in a region overlapping with the second antenna in the plan view (antennas 11 & 21 overlapping with each other in the plan view as seen in Figs. 1, 2).
In this particular case, arranging antennas in a stacked configuration above one another so that at least part of the first antenna is in a region overlapping with the second antenna in the plan view is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Soutiaguine et al. to improve antenna performance by providing high gain (Par. 0012, 0014).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide at least part of the first antenna of Garcia et al. to be disposed in a region overlapping with the second antenna in the plan view based on the teachings of Soutiaguine et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna performance by providing high gain.
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a connector electrically connected to the second antenna is disposed on or in the first dielectric layer (213 Figs. 2A, 2B Par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 18, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 4 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. is silent on further comprising a filter circuit configured to allow at least the signal in the first frequency band to pass therethrough, the filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer.
However, Garcia et al. teaches passive circuit elements Par. 0030.
In this particular case, providing a filter to allow the desired frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art to filter out unwanted signals/frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide passive circuit elements such as a filter circuit being disposed on or in the second dielectric layer based on the teachings of Garcia et al. as a result effect in order to block unwanted signals.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317418 (cited by applicant) and Fukuura et al. US Patent 6,556,169 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Mizunuma et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0222316 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claims 9, 11 & 12, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 1 / claim 2 / claim 3, respectively, as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. as modified is silent on wherein the radio frequency circuit is encapsulated within a resin.
However, Mizunuma et al. teaches wherein the radio frequency circuit (13 Fig. 1B Par. 0042) is encapsulated within a resin (25 Fig. 1B Par. 0042).
In this particular case, encapsulating the radio frequency circuit within a resin is common and well known in the art as evident by Mizunuma et al. in order to provide protection (Par. 0024).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the radio frequency circuit of Garcia et al. as modified to be encapsulated within a resin based on the teachings of Mizunuma et al. as a result effect in order to provide protection.
Regarding Claim 10, Garcia et al. as modified teaches wherein a shield layer covers the radio frequency circuit encapsulated within the resin (“the ground plane 1130 serves as a ground shield to isolate the RFIC chip 1030 from RF energy that is transmitted/received by the broadside antenna(s) 112” Par. 0070).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317418 (cited by applicant) and Fukuura et al. US Patent 6,556,169 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soutiaguine et al. US Patent Application Publication 2004/0056803 and Mizunuma et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0222316 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 13, Garcia et al. as modified teaches the antenna module according to claim 4 as shown in the rejection above.
Garcia et al. as modified is silent on wherein the radio frequency circuit is encapsulated within a resin.
However, Mizunuma et al. teaches wherein the radio frequency circuit (13 Fig. 1B Par. 0042) is encapsulated within a resin (25 Fig. 1B Par. 0042).
In this particular case, encapsulating the radio frequency circuit within a resin is common and well known in the art as evident by Mizunuma et al. in order to provide protection (Par. 0024).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the radio frequency circuit of Garcia et al. as modified to be encapsulated within a resin based on the teachings of Mizunuma et al. as a result effect in order to provide protection.
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights