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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected radio frequency module product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/30/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “covering a dry film on a surface of a side of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency modules, and forming a cavity between the dry film, the components and the substrate” (lines 5-7; emphasis added) is confusing and difficult to confidently interpret. The recitation causes the reader to question if it is the “dry film” or the “initial chip board” which is being covered. Additionally, the phrase “a surface of a side” is confusing and seemingly redundant. A “surface” is a “side” and vice versa. Further, it is not entirely clear that the “forming a cavity” language is a result of the “covering”, rather than a separate step. That being so, when read in light of the original disclosure, it seems likely that the Applicant intended something akin to: “applying a dry film to cover a surface of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency modules, thereby forming a cavity between the dry film, the components and the substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “A method for manufacturing a radio frequency module, comprising: providing an initial chip board comprising a substrate and a plurality of radio frequency modules fixed to the substrate, the radio frequency modules comprising a plurality of components; covering a dry film on a surface of a side of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency modules, and forming a cavity between the dry film, the components and the substrate; forming a first metal layer on a surface of the dry film, and forming a plastic sealing layer on the first metal layer; forming a second metal layer on a surface of the plastic sealing layer, the second metal layer being electrically connected to the first metal layer; and cutting the initial chip board along a boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules to obtain a single radio frequency module” (lines 1-13; emphasis added).
Throughout this claim, the references to “a radio frequency module” and “a plurality of radio frequency modules” and the like, are confusing and contradictory and thus the scope of the claim is ambiguous and thereby found to be indefinite. The preamble states that the entire purpose of the claim is to perform a method which ultimately results in the manufacture of a (single) radio frequency module. However, on the contrary, the first clause in the claim then states that a plurality of radio frequency modules have already been completely manufactured and are already provided. As such, the preamble contradicts the very first step of the claim, and the very first step of the claim apparently completes the entirety of the method implied by the preamble. Additionally, the radio frequency module(s) is/are disclosed in the claim as “comprising a plurality of components”, however the purported “method for manufacturing a radio frequency module” does not contain a single step directed to combining any “components” to form the purported radio frequency module. As such, the preamble and body of the claim once again contradict one another. If one is manufacturing one or more “radio frequency modules comprising a plurality of components”, but there are no steps for putting the components together in formation of the radio frequency modules, then one is not really performing “a method for manufacturing a radio frequency module”. Further, the final claimed step of “cutting…to obtain a single radio frequency module” does not require any of the structures disclosed in the “covering”, or “forming” steps, nor does it even modify any of the structures of those steps. As such, it seems that the “covering” and “forming” steps are actually not necessary for the claimed method at all. That is, the covering and forming steps do not apparently contribute to the claimed method of manufacturing a radio frequency module, and the “dry film”, “cavity”, “first metal layer”, “plastic sealing layer”, and “second metal layer” are apparently not actually required as parts of the module being formed.
As a courtesy, the Examiner is giving the Applicant the benefit of the doubt regarding what was more likely intended. However, it is important to note that though the claims are not read in a vacuum, and the Examiner must consider the entire disclosure in examination of a patent application, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims.
As such, this claim has been examined as best understood, according to the reasonable interpretations noted above. Another reasonable interpretation is that the Applicant may have intended something akin to:
“A method for manufacturing a radio frequency module, comprising: providing an initial chip board comprising a substrate and a plurality of radio frequency devices fixed to the substrate, the radio frequency devices comprising a plurality of components; covering a dry film on a surface of a side of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency devices , and forming a cavity between the dry film, the components and the substrate; forming a first metal layer on a surface of the dry film, and forming a plastic sealing layer on the first metal layer; forming a second metal layer on a surface of the plastic sealing layer, the second metal layer being electrically connected to the first metal layer; and cutting the initial chip board along a boundary between adjacent radio frequency devices to obtain a single radio frequency module comprising the plurality of components, as well as the dry film, the first metal layer, the plastic sealing layer, and the second metal layer.”
NOTE: It seems likely that the interpretation directly above is most analogous to the Applicant’s intended inventive concept for the claim. The Applicant is strongly encouraged to amend the claims accordingly, and to amend the Specification and Drawing figures to reflect these clarifications to ensure that the Examiner’s proposed “radio frequency device(s)” are given a reference numeral, as the currently multiply disclosed “radio frequency modules” apparently refer to different components at different times during the manufacturing method. Because of this, the different stages of said components need to be disclosed in a manner which clarifies that they are not one single element.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further found to be indefinite. The claim discloses: “cutting the initial chip board to form a groove at a boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules” (lines 3-4; emphasis added). This (italicized) limitation is indefinite, because claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, has already disclosed “a boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules” (line 12). As such, it is not clear if the boundary in claim 2 should really be the boundary from claim 1, or if instead it is intended to be another boundary or a different boundary. As best understood, it seems likely that the intention is for the cutting to occur at the same boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules in both claims. Claim 2 has been examined according to this interpretation.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e. claims 1-9) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. (US 2020/0212537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses a method for manufacturing a radio frequency module, comprising: providing an initial chip board (40) comprising a substrate (42) and a plurality of radio frequency modules (56, including: 44, 46, 48, 50) fixed to the substrate, the radio frequency modules comprising a plurality of components (44, 46, 48, 50) (figs. 7-8; pars. 0020-0023); covering a dry film (84) on a surface of a side (fig. 15, top as viewed) of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency modules, and forming a cavity (open area between 56 and 50 and 74/76) between the dry film, the components and the substrate (fig. 15; pars. 0031-0032); forming a first metal layer (28A) on a surface (top, as viewed) of the dry film, and forming a plastic sealing layer (20 and/or 30B and/or 86) on the first metal layer (figs. 1-4 and/or 16-17; pars. 0015 and 0017-0018 and/or 0033-0034); forming a second metal layer (“metal finish” and/or 34 and/or 78) on a surface of the plastic sealing layer, the second metal layer being electrically connected to the first metal layer (fig. 16; pars. 0018 and 0033-0034); and *cutting the initial chip board along a boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules to obtain a single radio frequency module (figs. 8 and/or 18; pars. 0023 and/or 0036).
*NOTE: the manner in which the “final” step of this claim is phrased is such that the “cutting” step does not need to be performed after any of the other claimed steps aside from the first step of “providing”. That is, the “cutting” step can be performed at any point in the method after the “providing” step. If the Applicant wishes for the cutting to occur after all of the other steps of the claim, then they are encouraged to amend the cutting step to disclose something akin to: “subsequent to forming the second metal layer, cutting the initial chip board…”
Regarding claim 4, Chuang discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the forming the second metal layer on the surface of the plastic sealing layer comprises: electroplating or metal vacuum sputtering on the surface of the plastic sealing layer to form the second metal layer (pars. 0018-0019).
Regarding claim 7, Chuang discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the first metal layer comprises at least one metal of steel, copper, aluminum, nickel or silver (par. 0017).
Regarding claim 8, Chuang discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the providing the initial chip board comprises: providing a substrate and a plurality of components of a plurality of radio frequency modules; and *welding components of the radio frequency modules to corresponding regions of the substrate, and cleaning (figs. 7-8; pars. 0021-0023).
*NOTE: throughout the original disclosure (including claims 8 and 9), there is discussion of “welding” and “welding region” and the like. Despite the use of the word “welding” it is not clear whether anything more than soldering or reflow soldering is being performed. Any of these interpretations is currently found to be reasonable given the breadth of the claim language and the lack of clear definition in the original specification.
Regarding claim 9, Chuang discloses the method as described in claim 8, wherein the substrate comprises a welding region (locations where the components are connected) for connecting the components and a non-welding region (locations where the components are not connected) outside the welding region (figs. 7-8), and the welding components of the radio frequency modules to corresponding regions of the substrate comprises: coating a solder resist (“passivation layers”) on the substrate, to form a solder resist layer in the non-welding region; metalizing surfaces of the components of the radio frequency modules, and adding solder (“solder balls”) into a reflow furnace to form bumps; and reflow welding the components of the radio frequency modules to the welding region of the substrate (figs. 7-8; pars. 0021-0023).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Pagaila et al. (US 20110278703 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chuang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Chuang further discloses that prior to the forming the second metal layer on the surface of the plastic sealing layer, the method further comprises: cutting the initial chip board at a boundary (52) between adjacent radio frequency modules (figs. 7-8; par. 0023). Chuang, however, does not explicitly disclose cutting the initial chip board to form a groove at a boundary between adjacent radio frequency modules, wherein a bottom of the groove runs through the first metal layer.
Pagaila teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method for manufacturing a radio frequency module (Title; Abstract; pars. 0030-0035), comprising: providing an initial chip board (fig. 4c: all) comprising a substrate (136) and a plurality of radio frequency modules (124, 132) fixed to the substrate, the radio frequency modules comprising a plurality of components (124 and 132) (figs. 4b-4d; pars. 0035, 0044-0046); forming a first metal layer (140/144), and forming a plastic sealing layer on the first metal layer (pars. 0051-0053); and cutting the initial chip board along a boundary (at 148) between adjacent radio frequency modules to obtain a single radio frequency module (figs. 4e-4f; par. 0048); further comprising cutting the initial chip board to form a groove (at 148) at a boundary (at 148) between adjacent radio frequency modules, wherein a bottom of the groove runs through the first metal layer (figs. 4e-4f; pars. 0047-0048).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Chuang to incorporate the groove being formed such that a bottom of the groove runs through the first metal layer of Pagaila. POSITA would have realized that dicing grooves can be easily and readily located wherever is desired on the device being formed to achieve the desired layout and/or footprint of the device. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special groove forming step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Chuang with the well-known formation of the groove such that it runs through the first metal layer of Pagaila. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 3, Chuang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Chuang, however, does not explicitly disclose that forming the first metal layer comprises: metal vacuum sputtering or electronic paste printing on the surface of the dry film to form the first metal layer.
Pagaila teaches that it is well known to perform the method as noted with regards to claim 2, above. Pagaila further teaches that it is well known that forming the first metal layer comprises: metal vacuum sputtering or electronic paste printing on the surface of the dry film to form the first metal layer (par. 0047).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Chuang to incorporate the sputtering and/or paste printing of Pagaila. POSITA would have realized that the metal of Chuang can be easily and readily vacuum sputtered or printed as a paste to achieve the desired patterning, resolution, precision and/or electrical connectivity. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special metal application step or process was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Chuang with the well-known sputtering and/or paste printing of Pagaila. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Racz et al. (US 2009/0250249 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chuang discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Chuang, however, does not explicitly disclose that the first metal layer has a thickness of 3 µm to 5 µm.
Racz teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method for manufacturing a radio frequency module (Title; Abstract; pars. 0002-0003), wherein the first metal layer (160) has a thickness of 3 µm to 5 µm (fig. 1C; par. 0037).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Chuang to incorporate the preferred dimensions of the first metal layer of Racz. POSITA would have realized that any preferred metal thickness can be easily and readily formed and accommodated to achieve the desired strength, shielding effect, conductive reliability and the like. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special metal forming or thinning step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Chuang with the well-known preferred thickness of Racz. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Additionally, it is not likely that the preferred thickness of the metal layer being formed would have any bearing or effect upon the steps of the method. Even if the metal thickness of Racz were incorporated in the intended product, the method of Chuang would be performed in the same manner as originally disclosed by Chuang and would have the same predictable outcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The relevant prior art has been cited on the record (including the concurrently mailed PTO-892). The most pertinent art is cited above in the prior art rejections. None of those references, either alone or in combination discloses or teaches all of the elements of claim 1 in conjunction with the specific elements and steps of claim 5. Chuang does further disclose that the components comprise at least one filter chip and at least one non-filter chip (par. 0021) and that the forming a plastic sealing layer on the first metal layer comprises: injection molding epoxy resin (par. 0034). However, Chuang and the remaining cited prior art do not disclose or teach that a gate region is formed at the first metal layer and the dry film between the non-filter chip and the substrate; the forming a plastic sealing layer on the first metal layer comprises: breaking the gate region to fill a gap between the non-filter chip, the substrate and the dry film; and continuously injection molding epoxy resin to cover the first metal layer, and forming a plastic sealing layer by curing molding.
Zhang et al. (CN 116799456 A) does disclose breaking a film layer (pg. 8, lines 15-17 and 25-40). However, this film layer is not analogous to the gate region of the claim and there is no indication that any gap filling occurs when the film layer is broken, contrary to the claimed limitations.
Accordingly, claim 5 is found to be novel and unobvious in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Brunnbauer et al. (US 2008/0265383 A1) appears to disclose most of the limitations of at least claim 1. Brunnbauer apparently discloses a method for manufacturing a radio frequency module (Title; Abstract), comprising: providing an initial chip board comprising a substrate (3) and a plurality of radio frequency modules (1, 6, 7, 8) fixed to the substrate, the radio frequency modules comprising a plurality of components (fig. 1; par. 0029); covering a dry film (27) on a surface of a side of the initial chip board provided with the radio frequency modules (fig. 9; par. 0057-0058); forming a first metal layer (9) on a surface of the dry film (fig. 9; par. 0059), and forming a plastic sealing layer (10) on the first metal layer (fig. 10; par. 0061); forming a second metal layer (32 and/or 35) on a surface of the plastic sealing layer; and cutting the initial chip board along a boundary (36) between adjacent radio frequency modules to obtain a single radio frequency module (figs. 14-15; pars. 0066-0067). The Brunnbauer reference is not currently applied as a prior art rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
