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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer et al. [US PGPUB 20140110841] (hereinafter Beer).
Regarding claim 1, Beer teaches an antenna device, comprising:
a radio frequency die (10, Para 41);
a molding compound (20, Para 41) laterally surrounding the radio frequency die (Fig. 13);
a feeding line (right line 35 connected to RF die 10, Para 49) over the radio frequency die (Fig. 13); and
a radiating element (50, Para 46) over the feeding line (Fig. 13) and electrically coupled to the radio frequency die (Para 50).
Regarding claim 2, Beer teaches an antenna device wherein the feeding line vertically overlaps with the radio frequency die (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, Beer teaches an antenna device wherein the feeding line is spaced apart from the molding compound (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Beer teaches an antenna device further comprising:
a redistribution layer (35/40, Para 49) over the radio frequency die and the molding compound (Fig. 13), wherein the redistribution layer is at a same level height as the feeding line (Fig. 13 in view of left line 35 connected to RF die 10 and right line 35 connected to RF die 10).
Regarding claim 6, Beer teaches an antenna device further comprising:
a dielectric layer (30, Para 94) over the feeding line (Fig. 13), wherein the radiating element is within the dielectric layer (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Beer teaches an antenna device further comprising:
a director (310, Para 82) over the radiating element (Fig. 13).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen et al. [US PGPUB 20130292808] (hereinafter Yen).
Regarding claim 1, Yen teaches an antenna device, comprising:
a radio frequency die (112a, Para 38);
a molding compound (120, Para 39) laterally surrounding the radio frequency die (Fig. 17);
a feeding line (331, Para 69; i.e., feeds element 155 to ground, Para 74) over the radio frequency die (Fig. 17); and
a radiating element (150, Para 36) over the feeding line (Fig. 1) and electrically coupled to the radio frequency die (Fig. 17; coupled via elements 155/530/570).
Regarding claim 2, Yen teaches an antenna device wherein the feeding line vertically overlaps with the radio frequency die (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 5, Yen teaches an antenna device further comprising:
a ground element (155, Para 36) vertically between the feeding line and the radiating element (Fig. 17).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. [US PGPUB 20130292809] (hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 8, Yoo teaches an antenna device, comprising:
a package (10/11/20, Fig .5) comprising a molding compound (20, Para 104) and a radio frequency die (10, Para 105) in the molding compound (Fig. 5); and
a first radiating element (40, Para 104) in the molding compound and electrically coupled to the radio frequency die (Fig. 5), wherein a top surface of the first radiating element is level with a top surface of the molding compound (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Yoo teaches an antenna device further comprising:
a buffer layer (30, Fig. 5; in view of the presence of structure 30, thus avoiding direct connection the outside) below the package and the first radiating element (Fig. 5).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii [US PGPUB 20090168367].
Regarding claim 15, Fujii teaches an antenna device, comprising:
a thermal plate (25, Para 52);
a radio frequency die 15 (15, Para 45) over the thermal plate (Fig. 3); and
a molding compound (21, Para 52) laterally surrounding the thermal plate and the radio frequency die (Fig. 3; wherein the thermal palate is depicted to be partially in the molding compound).
Regarding claim 16, Fujii teaches an antenna wherein a lateral dimension of the thermal plate is substantially the same as a lateral dimension of the radio frequency die (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Fujii teaches an antenna wherein the thermal plate comprises copper, silver, gold, or combinations thereof (Para 52).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Ibaraki [US PGPUB 20100219525].
Regarding claim 12, Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 11 upon which it depends.
Yoo does not specifically disclose an under-bump metallurgy layer in the buffer layer.
However, it is noted that Yoo discloses that external electrodes 38 of the buffer layer is used to electrically connect the semiconductor package to the outside (Para 51).
Referring to the invention of Ibaraki, Ibaraki disclose the mounting of a package 304/344 onto a mounting substrate 302 via a buffer layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises an under-bump metallurgy layer (335, Para 54) in the buffer layer (Fig. 10).
In view of such teaching by Ibaraki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Yoo comprise a detailed structure of a buffer layer and how it is used to connect to the outside as taught by Ibaraki at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo.
Regarding claim 13, Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 8 upon which it depends.
In the embodiment of Fig. 5, Yoo does not specifically disclose an antenna device further comprising:
a second radiating element over the radio frequency die, wherein the second radiating element is spaced apart from the molding compound.
Referring to Fig. 2 of Yoo’s invention, Yoo teaches a package comprising a first and second radiating element spaced from one another over a radio frequency die (Fig. 2).
In view of such teaching by Yoo according to the embodiment of Fig. 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yoo’s embodiment of Fig. 5 comprise the dual antenna of the embodiment 2, at least based on the rationale of using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C) –wherein dual antenna can allow for multi-band device or improve radiation pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14 and 18-20 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights