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 .
Notice to Applicant
Applicant’s Preliminary Amendments filed on March 1, 2024 and on April 4, 2024 have been entered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 59-79 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 59, line 6, substitute “is create a” with --of the-- after “the formation.”
In claim 67, line 1, substitute “RF PA SiP” with --radio frequency power amplifier (RF PA) system-in-a-package (SiP) device--.
In claim 67, line 15, add --first-- before “metal plating base.”
In claim 69, line 1, add --(RF)-- after “A radio frequency.”
In claim 69, line 2, substitute “the” with --a-- before “RF filter.”
In claim 69, line 2, substitute “the” with --a-- before “source or drain contact.”
In claim 69, line 2 substitute “the” with --a-- before “GaN transistor.”
In claim 70, line 4, delete “the” before “one or more MIM capacitors.”
In claim 70, line 4, substitute “MIM” with --Metal-Insulator-metal (MIM)-- before “capacitors.”
In claim 77, line 1, substitute “RF PA SiP” with --radio frequency power amplifier (RF PA) system-in-a-package (SiP) device--.
In claim 77, line 15, add --first-- before “metal plating base.”
Claims 66 and 76 appear to be identical in scope. One of the claims should be amended to distinguish its scope or be canceled.
Claims 67 and 77 appear to be identical in scope. One of the claims should be amended to distinguish its scope or be canceled.
Claims 60-65, 68, 71-75, 78 and 79 variously depend from claim 59, 67, 69, 70 or 77, so they are objected for the same reasons.
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 59-66 and 69-76 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.
Claims 59 and 69 are indefinite because it is unclear what structures are encompassed by the phrase “the one or more” in the limitation “the one or more are formed in, on, or about the substrate.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the phrase refers to the recited inductors, capacitors, thin film resistors, or a combination of thereof. Furthermore, the term “about” is vague because it does not clearly define the location of the recited structures relative to the substrate. Similar issues exist in claims 66 and 76, which recite that “the one or more conductive coils are formed in, on, or about the substrate.”
Additionally, claims 66 and 76 appear to be identical in scope. One of the claims should be amended to distinguish its scope or be canceled.
For purposes of examination, the phrase “the one or more are formed in, on, or about the substrate” is interpreted as “the one or more inductors, capacitors, and thin film resistors are formed in, on, or adjacent to the substrate,” and the phrase “the one or more conductive coils are formed in, on, or about the substrate” is interpreted as “the one or more conductive coils are formed in, on, or adjacent to the substrate.”
Claims 60-65 and 70-75 depend from claim 59 or 69, so they are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 69 further recites a preamble of “a radio frequency integrated system-in-a-package (SiP) device comprising with the RF filter monolithically integrated into the source or drain contact of the GaN transistor comprising.” However, the phrase “comprising with” is improper language and renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is also unclear whether the RF filter and the GaN transistor are components of the SiP device, or how these elements are structurally related within the claimed system.
Claim 73 recites the limitation “the RF PA SiP device” in lines 2 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 74 recites the limitation “the RF PA SiP device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 75 recites the limitation “the RF PA SiP device” in lines 6, 8 and 10. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 59-62, 64-66 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. (US Pub. 2020/0168536; hereinafter “Link”) in view of Then et al. (US Pub. 2020/0227470; hereinafter “Then”).
Regarding Claim 59, Link discloses a radio frequency (RF) system-in-a-package (SiP) device (page 1, paragraph 1; page 9, paragraph 78) comprising: a substrate 134 (page 4, paragraph 32) comprising one or more inductors, capacitors, and thin film resistors 100 (page 3, paragraph 26) wherein the one or more inductors 100, capacitors, and thin film resistors are formed in, on, or adjacent to the substrate 134 (see fig. 2); an opening 136 in the substrate 134 comprising an iron core 104 (page 3, paragraph 25), wherein the iron core 104 is formed in the substrate 134 after the formation of the RF SiP in the substrate 134 (see fig. 2); and one or more connectors, vias, resistors, capacitors, or other integrated circuits devices connected to create the RF SiP (an IC package 1650 may include additional passive components such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors; page 9, paragraphs 78 and 85; see fig. 8).
Link fails to disclose wherein the SiP device including a power amplifier (PA).
However, Then discloses wherein an RF FE includes multiple components including power amplifiers (PAs) (page 1, paragraph 13) in a SiP device (page 11, paragraph 83).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a SiP device including PA, as taught by Then, in order to reduce costs and improve performance by reducing RF losses incurred when power is routed off chip in a multi-chip module package (Then; page 2, paragraph 18).
The underlined limitation is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation because it recites the sequence by which the claimed device is manufactured rather than a structural characteristic of the device itself. The recited formation sequence does not impart any structural distinction to the claimed device and therefore does not distinguish the claimed device from the device in Link having the same structure, regardless of the order in which the components were fabricated.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “because validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 60, Link discloses wherein at least one of: the one or more inductors 100 are one or more conductive coils 102 (solenoid) that comprise copper (page 3, paragraph 24); or the one or more capacitors are one or more high surface area shunt capacitors.
Regarding Claims 61 and 62, Link discloses one or more inductors 100. While Link does not explicitly disclose capacitors or thin film resistors, the claim language encompasses a substrate having one or more of the recited passive components. Thus, the disclosure of inductor 100 satisfies the claimed limitation. Accordingly, claims 61 and 62, insofar as they are interpreted as requiring capacitors and/or resistors in addition to the disclosed inductor, are not supported by the claim language and such alleged distinctions are not accorded patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 64, Link discloses wherein at least one of: the substrate 134 is glass (page 12, paragraphs 108-110); the substrate is a glass substrate comprising a composition of: 60-76 weight % silica; at least 3 weight % K2O with 6 weight %-16 weight % of a combination of K2O and Na2O; 0.003-1 weight % of at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of Ag2O and Au2O; 0.003-2 weight % Cu2O; 0.75 weight %-7 weight % B2O3, and 6-7 weight % Al2O3; with the combination of B2O3; and Al2O3 not exceeding 13 weight %; 8-15 weight % Li2O; and 0.001-0.1 weight % CeO2; the substrate is a glass substrate comprising a composition of: 35-76 weight % silica, 3-16 weight % K2O, 0.003-1 weight % Ag2O, 0.75-13 weight % B2O3, 8-15 weight % Li2O, and 0.001-0.1 weight % CeO2; the substrate is at least one of: a photo-definable glass substrate comprises at least 0.3 weight % Sb2O3 or As2O3; a photo-definable glass substrate comprises 0.003-1 weight % Au2O; a photo-definable glass substrate comprises 1-18 weight % of an oxide selected from the group consisting of CaO, ZnO, PbO, MgO and BaO; and optionally has an anisotropic-etch ratio of exposed portion to an unexposed portion is at least one of 10-20:1; 21-29:1; 30-45:1; 20-40:1; 41-45:1; and 30-50:1; or the substrate is a photosensitive glass ceramic composite substrate comprising at least silica, lithium oxide, aluminum oxide, and cerium oxide.
Regarding Claim 65, Link discloses further comprising at least one of: a passivation or coating layer 1668 (a mold compound) on the RF PA SiP device (page 9, paragraphs 78 and 83) to protect the RF PA SiP device from an environment (see fig. 8); the connectors comprise copper, which can be connector coils; the RF PA SiP device has a reduced signal loss when compared to existing RF PA glass ceramic SiP; the RF PA SiP device has a loss of less than 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, or 10% of a signal input versus a signal output; a geometry of the RF PA SiP device is substantially circular; or the iron core comprises melted or sintered iron particles, microparticles, or nanoparticles.
Regarding Claims 66 and 76, Link discloses a radio frequency (RF) system-in-a-package (SiP) device (page 1, paragraph 1; page 9, paragraph 78) made by a method comprising: forming on a substrate 134 (page 4, paragraph 32) one or more conductive coils 102 (solenoid; page 3, paragraph 28), wherein the one or more conductive coils 102 are formed in, on, or adjacent to the substrate 134 (see fig. 2); etching an opening 136 in the substrate 134 (page 4, paragraph 33; see fig. 3C); depositing iron particles (the magnetic material 104 may include iron and cobalt in the form of an iron-cobalt-based ferromagnetic alloy powder; page 3, paragraph 25) in the opening 136 (see fig. 3D); and connecting the conductive coils 102 of the RF SiP to an antenna 1822 (page 10, paragraph 93; page 11, paragraph 97; see fig. 10).
Link fails to disclose wherein the SiP device including a power amplifier (PA).
However, Then discloses wherein an RF FE includes multiple components including power amplifiers (PAs) (page 1, paragraph 13) in a SiP device (page 11, paragraph 83).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a SiP device including PA, as taught by Then, in order to reduce costs and improve performance by reducing RF losses incurred when power is routed off chip in a multi-chip module package (Then; page 2, paragraph 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67, 68 and 77-79 will be allowed after correcting the objections set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 67 and 77 recite electroplating a second metal layer on the topside and backside of the substrate, wherein the second metal layer is thicker than the first metal plating base; removing the photoresist and etching the first metal plating base; coating a third metal layer by Electroless Nickel Immersion Gold (ENIG) on the first substrate; etching a high density capacitor cavity in the first substrate; patterning and coating high density capacitor copper pillars with a dielectric layer; patterning and coating the high density capacitor dielectric with a fourth metal layer to make a MIM high density capacitor; electroplating a fifth copper metal layer on the topside and backside of the second substrate; removing the photoresist and etching a second metal plating base; coating a sixth copper metal layer with ENIG.
These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 68, 78 and 79 variously depend from claim 67 or 77, so they will be allowed for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5977. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/CHEUNG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights