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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been submitted.
The Examiner would like to remind Applicants about Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith (See 37 C.F.R. F56 and MPEP2001).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira et al., US 2022/0375707 (corresponding to US 11,605,571), in view of Maxscend, CN 216120295 (cited in this Action as its machine translation Maxscend CN 216120295 ENG).
In re Claim 1, Teixeira discloses a surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure 300 (Fig. 3), comprising: a substrate 202, at least one surface acoustic wave filter chip 204 ([0034]) located on the substrate 202, the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204 fixed to the substrate 202 by a plurality of first convex structures 240 on a surface of the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204, and a cavity 242 formed between the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204 and the substrate 202; at least one non-filter chip 206 (such as LED ([0033]) located on the substrate 202 and spaced apart from the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204, the non-filter chip 206 fixed to the substrate 202 by a plurality of second convex structures 260 on a surface of the non-filter chip 206; a dry film layer 207 covering the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204 and the non-filter chip 206, the dry film layer 207 comprising a fracture area (marked as 304, 306) surrounding the non-filter chip 206; and a plastic sealing layer 209 covering the dry film layer 207 (Figs. 3-13, [0030 – 0079]). Teixeira does not indicate that the plastic sealing layer 209 been filled in a space between the substrate 202 and the non-filter chip 206 through the fracture area (304, 306).
Maxscend teaches a surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure 10 (Fig. 5) wherein a plastic sealing layer 4 been filled in a space between the substrate 1 and the non-filter chip 3 through the fracture area (marked as FA in Fig. A).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Maxscend’s Fig. 5 annotated to show the details cited
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine teachings of Teixeira and Maxscend, and to use the specified plastic sealing layer filled in a space between the substrate and the non-filter chip through the fracture area to to solve the problems of high process cost, large injection pressure and poor reliability of the package structure as taught by Maxscend (page 1 of CN 216120295 ENG).
In re Claim 2, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses the surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure as described in claim 1, wherein the dry film layer 207 attaches and covers the surface acoustic wave filter chip 204 and the non-filter chip 206 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) by vacuum airbag lamination (Teixeira: [0038]).
In re Claim 3, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses all limitations of Claim 3 except for that a height of each second convex structure 260 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) is not less than 50 microns. It is known in the art that the height of each second convex structure is a result effective variable – because its volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the height of each second convex structure not less than 50 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
In re Claim 4, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses all limitations of Claim 3 except for that a height of each second convex structure 260 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) is not less than 40 microns. It is known in the art that the height of each second convex structure is a result effective variable – because its volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the height of each second convex structure not less than 40 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
In re Claim 5, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses the surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure as described in claim 2, wherein the dry film layer 207 is made of epoxy resin material (Teixeira : [0038]).
In re Claim 6, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that a thickness of the dry film layer 207 is 40-50 microns.
It is known in the art that the thickness of the dry film layer is a result effective variable – because its volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use a thickness of the dry film layer 40-50 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
In re Claim 7, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that a diameter of each first convex structure 240 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) is 180-200 microns, and/or the diameter of each second convex structure 260 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) is 180-200 microns.
It is known in the art that a diameter of each first convex structure 240 and a diameter of each first convex structure 240 is a result effective variable – because their masses depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the diameter of each first convex structure 240 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) of 180-200 microns, and/or the diameter of each second convex structure of 260 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
In re Claim 8, Teixeira taken with Maxscend discloses the surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure as described in claim 1, wherein a solder mask layer 224 (Teixeira’s Fig. 3) is provided between the substrate 220 and the dry film layer 207, and the solder mask 224 layer is also provided in a position without the first convex structures 240 in the cavity 242.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re Claim 9, prior-art fails to disclose a packaging method of a surface acoustic wave filter module packaging structure, comprising “increasing a pressure of the vacuum airbag lamination, and only causing a part of the dry film layer around the non-filter chip to broken to form a fracture area.” Therefore, the claimed method differs from prior art methods on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights