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
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in legal terminology which is too similar to claim language. In particular, legal phraseology such as the term “comprising”, “said” and “wherein” which are commonly used to define the limitations and scope pf patent claims, should generally be avoided in U.S. patent abstracts because the purpose of the abstract is not to define the patent claims, but to provide the reader with a clear and concise summary. The abstract should use plain language to describe the invention's technical problem, solution, and principal use. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” etc. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katoh (US 5235208).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 5 (lateral view) and Fig 6(a)-(g) (respective layers of Fig 5) of Katoh discloses A package structure having an air gap 9/9a, the package structure comprising:
a first substrate layer (Fig 5/Fig 6(e), the lower substrate in the 2b);
a second substrate layer (Fig 5/Fig 6(e), the upper substrate in the 2b) provided on top of the first substrate layer and having a signal line printed 3 (Fig 5, col 5, line 3-4; same as 6 show in Fig 2) in a predetermined pattern at a center of an upper surface thereof (Fig 5, Fig 6(d)) and a pair of grounds printed (Fig 6(d), col 6, line 16-18; both left and right 1c1) in a predetermined pattern (Fig 6(d)) at opposite sides of the signal line (left and right sides of the signal line 3), respectively;
a third substrate layer (Fig 5, Fig 6(c), the lower substrate in the 2a) provided on top of the signal line and the grounds; and
a fourth substrate layer (Fig 5, Fig 6(c): the upper substrate in the 2a) provided on top of the third substrate layer,
wherein the air gap is formed at a center of the third substrate layer (Fig 6(c)), and
wherein an upper portion of the air gap is in contact with a side of a lower portion of the fourth substrate layer (Fig 6(c)), and
a lower portion of the air gap is in contact with the signal line (Fig 6(c) and 6(d)).
Regarding claim 2. Katoh discloses The package structure of claim 1, wherein the first substrate layer, the second substrate layer, the third substrate layer, and the fourth substrate layer are made of a dielectric material (col 5, line 1-9: 2a and 2b are dielectric layers).
Regarding claim 3. Katoh discloses The package structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a ground layer 1c2 (col 6, line 16-17) disposed between the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer (Fig 5, Fig 6(e)).
Regarding claim 4. Katoh discloses The package structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a via 5/5a (col 5, line 27-30) provided below at least one of the signal line the grounds (Fig 6(d), Fig 6(e)), wherein the via penetrates the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer in a vertical direction (Fig 6(e)).
Regarding claim 5. Katoh discloses The package structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a ground plane 1c printed on a lower surface of the fourth substrate layer (Fig 5, Fig 6(c)).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katoh (US 5235208).
Regarding claim 6. Katoh discloses The package structure of claim 1. But the embodiment of Figs. 5 and 6(a)-6(f), relied upon for claim 1, does not expressly disclose that either a front or rear surface of the air gap is configured to be opened.
However, Katoh additionally discloses, in the embodiment of Fig. 1, an aperture/cavity (9) that is open to the exterior.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cavity/air-gap region of the embodiment of Figs. 5 and 6(a)-6(f) with the opened configuration shown in Fig. 1, thereby eliminating the need for the sealing lid (col 1, line 59-65; Katoh additionally teaches that the use of a lid to form an airtight enclosure increases production cost) because doing so would have reduced manufacturing complexity and production cost while retaining the underlying microwave package structure. The modification merely represents the predictable use of a known configuration disclosed by Katoh to obtain the recognized benefit of lower cost and improved manufacturability.
Conclusion
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: 8A-4P.
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
Prosecution Insights