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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment filed on 9/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 of this title, 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 - 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh (US 5235208) in view of Abraham et al. (US 20140264287; “Abraham”).
Regarding claim 1, Katoh teaches a package structure having an air gap (the unfilled space within aperture 9/9a; Figs. 5 and 6(b)–6(c)), the package structure comprising:
a first substrate layer (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(e), the lower constituent dielectric layer of portion 2b);
a second substrate layer provided on top of the first substrate layer and having a signal line printed in a predetermined pattern at a center of an upper surface thereof and a pair of grounds printed in a predetermined pattern at opposite sides of the signal line, respectively (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(d): the upper constituent dielectric layer of portion 2b, its patterned transmission line, and the patterned grounding films 1c₁ on opposite sides of that line; the printed features are mapped to the resulting patterned conductive films);
a third substrate layer provided on top of the signal line and the grounds (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(c), the lower constituent dielectric layer of portion 2a); and
a fourth substrate layer provided on top of the third substrate layer (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(b), the upper constituent dielectric layer of portion 2a).
Katoh further teaches a ground plane (the intermediate grounding film at the interface between the constituent upper dielectric layers; Figs. 5 and 6(b)–6(c)).
But Katoh does not expressly teach the claimed combination of a ground plane printed on a lower surface of the fourth substrate layer, wherein the ground plane is disposed to face the signal line with the air gap therebetween. In particular, Katoh does not expressly teach that facing relationship together with the claimed position of the air gap in the third substrate layer and its contacts with the fourth substrate layer and the signal line.
However, Abraham teaches a ground plane disposed to face the signal line with the air gap therebetween (Fig. 1; paragraph [0024]: the ceiling portion of grounded metallization 108 faces signal conductor 103 across the unfilled cavity 105). The ground plane is supported on the lower, cavity-facing surface of cap 101, and grounds 102 and 104 are located on opposite sides of signal conductor 103.
In the illustrated embodiment, cavity 105 is relied upon as the claimed air gap. Figure 1 depicts an unfilled separation between signal conductor 103 and the ceiling metallization 108. Consistently, paragraph [0031] states: “No explicit dielectrics are (but can be) necessarily implemented.” Thus, the embodiment without the optional added dielectric provides a gap free of intervening solid dielectric between the facing conductors. This structural mapping is consistent with Applicant’s explanation that the air gap leaves no dielectric material between the signal line and the ground plane (paragraph [0063], cited in Applicant’s remarks). Accordingly, Abraham teaches the claimed air-gap relationship through this disclosed unfilled-cavity configuration.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katoh’s package by applying Abraham’s facing ground-plane/air-gap/signal-line arrangement to Katoh’s coplanar signal-line region. Specifically, the modification would form an air gap at a center of the third substrate layer above the signal line and provide a ground plane printed on a lower surface of the fourth substrate layer spanning the air gap. Here, the printed ground plane is mapped to the resulting patterned conductive film on that lower surface.
This modification would provide an overhead ground shield and improve microwave grounding between the coplanar grounds while separating the overhead conductor from the signal line without a solid dielectric crossover. Abraham identifies unwanted coplanar modes and dielectric-crossover loss in paragraphs [0004]–[0006]. Those considerations provide a reason to apply the arrangement to Katoh’s coplanar microwave package.
In the resulting structure:
the air gap is formed at a center of the third substrate layer (the opening through the third substrate layer above the signal line);
an upper portion of the air gap is in contact with a side of a lower portion of the fourth substrate layer (the ground-coated lower surface bounding the top of the air gap);
a lower portion of the air gap is in contact with the signal line (the exposed upper surface of the signal line bounding the bottom of the air gap); and
the ground plane is disposed to face the signal line with the air gap therebetween.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the modification applies a known ground-shield configuration to the same type of coplanar transmission-line geometry using Katoh’s existing multilayer construction. Channel dimensions and conductor spacing could be selected to control impedance and capacitive loading, consistent with Abraham’s paragraphs [0028]–[0029]. The modification represents the predictable application of a known microwave shielding arrangement to obtain its recognized grounding and dielectric-separation benefits.
Regarding claim 2, Katoh in view of Abraham teaches the package structure of claim 1, as discussed above. Katoh further teaches that the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, the third substrate layer, and the fourth substrate layer are made of a dielectric material (Figs. 5 and 6(b)–6(e); the constituent dielectric layers of portions 2a and 2b).
The modification discussed for claim 1 forms the air gap in the third substrate layer and provides the ground plane on the lower surface of the fourth substrate layer while retaining the dielectric material of the four substrate layers. Accordingly, the combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Katoh in view of Abraham teaches the package structure of claim 1, as discussed above. Katoh further teaches a ground layer disposed between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6(e): grounding film 1c₂ at the interface between the first substrate layer of Fig. 6(e) and the second substrate layer of Fig. 6(d)).
The modification discussed for claim 1 retains this ground layer in the lower substrate stack. Accordingly, the combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Katoh in view of Abraham teaches the package structure of claim 1, as discussed above. Katoh further teaches a via provided below at least one of the signal line and the grounds, wherein the via penetrates the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer in a vertical direction (Fig. 5 and Figs. 6(d)–6(e): ground-connected through hole 5 below the grounds and extending vertically through the two constituent dielectric layers of portion 2b).
A ground-connected via below the grounds satisfies the requirement that the via be below at least one of the signal line and the grounds. The modification discussed for claim 1 retains these vias through the lower substrate layers. Accordingly, the combination teaches the additional limitation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Katoh in view of Abraham teaches the package structure of claim 1, as discussed above. Abraham further teaches that either a front or a rear surface of the air gap is configured to be opened (Fig. 3; paragraph [0026]: the longitudinal end opening of unfilled cavity 305 beneath cap 301 corresponds to the claimed open front or rear surface of the air gap). Specifically, Fig. 3 depicts the signal-line path continuing through that opening from beneath the cap into the uncovered circuit region. Paragraph [0026] confirms that cap 301 covers only a portion of the underlying substrate 306 and circuit 310.
As explained for claim 1, the disclosed unfilled cavity is mapped to the claimed air gap based on the illustrated separation and paragraph [0031], which permits an embodiment without added dielectric. Paragraph [0026] identifies the Fig. 3 embodiment as similar to those of Figs. 1 and 2. Accordingly, cavity 305 in this embodiment provides an unfilled gap beneath the cap, and its longitudinal end opening corresponds to the claimed front or rear surface configured to be opened.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure either a front or a rear surface of the air gap in Katoh’s package, as modified by Abraham for claim 1, to be opened, as shown in Abraham’s Fig. 3. The reason would have been to provide ground-shield coverage over the selected signal-line segment while permitting the signal line to continue through the open surface of the air gap into an adjoining uncovered connection region.
In the resulting structure, a front or rear end of the air gap would remain open, while the fourth substrate layer and its ground plane would remain above the covered signal-line segment. The package would therefore retain the ground plane facing the signal line across the air gap, as required by claim 1, and additionally provide the open front or rear surface required by claim 6.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because this modification applies the end geometry of the same overhead-cavity arrangement adopted for claim 1. Its predictable result is a locally covered transmission-line segment having an open longitudinal channel end through which the signal line continues.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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 on 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
