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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the double patenting rejection and some of the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “It is believed that no art of record discloses or suggests these features.
For example, the Office Action acknowledges that Liao does not disclose or suggest that the plurality of internal terminals are exposed by the first support and that the plurality of external terminals are exposed by the second support (Office Action, pp. 6-7). Instead, the Office Action relies on You for these features.
However, even assuming arguendo the assertions in the Office Action pertaining to You, You does not disclose or suggest that the internal terminals are connected directly to the external terminals without an interposer or module substrate. Therefore, it is believed that You does not disclose or suggest the amended features of Claim 1, and does not cure the acknowledged deficiencies of Liao. Accordingly, no combination of Liao and You discloses or suggests every feature recited in amended Claim 1, and amended Claim 1 is believed to be in condition for allowance, together with any claim depending therefrom. Withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.”
The arguments are moot because claim 1 is now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al, US-20120062439-A1 in view of Hoegerl et al, US-20070200748-A1 a explained below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the antenna component" in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets as “the at least one antenna component”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the antenna" in line 3 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets as “the at least one antenna”.
Similar rejections would be applied to claims 10, 12, 15 and 20.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al, US-20120062439-A1 (hereinafter Liao) in view of Hoegerl et al, US-20070200748-A1 (hereinafter Hoegerl).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses the following:
an antenna module comprising:
a sub-module (120, 112-112b, 130, fig. 1) including
a plurality of electronic components (112a, 112b), each including a plurality of internal terminals (fig. 1 below),
a first support (120) that covers and supports the plurality of electronic components (112a-112b), and
a first conductive film (130) that is disposed on at least a part of the first support;
at least one antenna (150);
a second support (140) that supports the sub-module (120, 112-112b, 130, fig. 1) and supports the at least one antenna (150).
Liao does not disclose a plurality of external terminals that are connected to the plurality of internal terminals and are exposed from the second support,
wherein the plurality of internal terminals are connected directly to the plurality of external terminals without using an interposer or a module substrate.
Hoegerl suggests a plurality of external terminals (32, 33, fig. 5) that are connected to the plurality of internal terminals (18) and are exposed from the second support (37),
wherein the plurality of internal terminals (18) are connected directly to the plurality of external terminals (32, 33) without using an interposer or a module substrate (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of external terminals as suggested in Hoegerl to connect to the plurality of internal terminals taught in Liao as claimed for the purpose of electrically connecting the electronic components disposed in the first support to other components outside of the second support in order to form the circuitry for the antenna module to perform wireless communication.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liao does not disclose wherein the plurality of internal terminals are exposed at a first surface of the first support, the plurality of external terminals are exposed at a second surface of the second support, and the first surface and the second surface face in a same direction.
Hoegerl suggests wherein the plurality of internal terminals (18, fig. 5) are exposed at a first surface of the first support (17), the plurality of external terminals (32, 33) are exposed at a second surface of the second support (15), and the first surface and the second surface face in a same direction (fig. 5).
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 surfaces that the plurality of external terminals and internal terminals are exposed facing the same direction as suggested in Hoegerl to the antenna module taught in Liao as claimed for the purpose of electrically connecting the electronic components disposed in the first support to other components outside of the second support in order to form the circuitry for the antenna module to perform wireless communication.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of You, US-20220375884-A1.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose wherein the at least one antenna is configured by at least one antenna component including a radiating element and an antenna terminal, and the antenna component is covered with and supported by the second support to expose the antenna terminal at the second surface.
You suggests wherein the at least one antenna is configured by at least one antenna component including a radiating element (201, fig. 10) and an antenna terminal (fig. 10 below), and the antenna component is covered with and supported by the second support (300P) to expose the antenna terminal at the second surface (fig. 10).
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 antenna terminal as suggested in You to the antenna module taught in Liao and Hoegerl as claimed for the purpose of electrically connecting the radiating element covered inside the second support to other components outside of the second support in order to form the circuitry for the antenna module to perform wireless communication.
[AltContent: textbox (Antenna terminal)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
502
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Hoegerl and You as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mikata, US-20190372210-A1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liao, Hoegerl and You does not disclose wherein the second support includes a top surface that faces in a direction opposite to the second surface, and the antenna module further comprises a second conductive film disposed on the top surface.
Mikata suggests wherein the second support (18, fig. 3B) includes a top surface that faces in a direction opposite to the second surface (fig. 3B below), and the antenna module further comprises a second conductive film (20) disposed on the top surface (fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second conductive film as suggested in Mikata to the antenna module taught in Liao, Hoegel and You as claimed for the purpose of reducing the interference generated from the electronic components and preventing the radio waves transmitted or received by the antenna from being attenuated (Mikata, para [0039]).
PNG
media_image3.png
187
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liao, Hoegerl and You does not disclose wherein the second conductive film is disposed in a partial region of the top surface, and a region in which the second support is exposed from the second conductive film and the at least one of the antenna component overlap in plan view.
Mikata suggests wherein the second conductive film (20, fig. 3B) is disposed in a partial region of the top surface (fig. 3 above), and a region in which the second support is exposed from the second conductive film and the at least one of the antenna component (12) overlap in plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide region in which the second support is exposed from the second conductive film overlap with at least one the antenna components as suggested in Mikata to the antenna module taught in Liao, Hoegerl and You as claimed for the purpose of preventing the interference of the conductive film to the antenna component’s performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Hoegerl and You as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of So et al, US-20190057944-A1 (hereinafter So).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose the antenna module according to Claim 3, further comprising: a first feed line that is disposed on the second surface and connects one of the plurality of external terminals to the antenna; and a ground plane that is disposed in a region of the second surface that does not overlap the first feed line.
You discloses the antenna module according to Claim 3, further comprising: a first feed line (420, fig. 10) that is disposed on the second surface (fig. 10) and connects one of the plurality of external terminals to the antenna (201, para [0090]); and a ground plane (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first feed line as taught in You to the antenna module taught in Liao and Hoegerl as claimed for the purpose of providing signal to the antenna in order to perform wireless communication.
The combination of Liao, Hoegerl and You does not disclose the ground plane that is disposed in a region of the second surface that does not overlap the first feed line.
So suggests the ground plane (112aG, fig. 16) that is disposed in a region of the surface (layer 112a, fig. 5, para [0122]) that does not overlap the first feed line (112aF, fig. 16).
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 ground plane in a region of the second surface that does not overlap the first feed line as suggested in So to the antenna module taught in Liao, Hoegerl and You as claimed for the purpose of separating the first feed line from the ground plane in order to avoid short circuit between the feed line and the ground plane to form an antenna circuitry to perform wireless communication.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Hoegerl and You as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Han, US-20210051797-A1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liao, Hoegerl and You does not disclose the antenna module according to Claim 3, further comprising: a surface-mounted chip component that is supported by the second support and includes an electrode terminal exposed at the second surface, wherein when the second surface is viewed in plan, the sub-module is disposed between the antenna component and the surface-mounted chip component.
Han suggests the antenna module according to Claim 3, further comprising: a surface-mounted chip component (fig. 11) that is supported by the second support (10) and includes an electrode terminal exposed at the second surface (12), wherein when the second surface is viewed in plan, the sub-module (1b) is disposed between the antenna component (60) and the surface-mounted chip component (fig. 11).
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 surface-mounted chip component as suggested in Han to the antenna module taught in Liao, Hoegerl and You as claimed for the purpose of providing more electronic components to the antenna module in order to provide more functions to the antenna module.
PNG
media_image4.png
390
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ito et al, US-20160149300-A1 (hereinafter Ito).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose wherein the at least one antenna includes a radiating element configured with a metal pattern disposed on the second surface.
Ito suggests wherein the at least one antenna (5, fig. 23) includes a radiating element (51) configured with a metal pattern disposed on the second surface (fig. 23).
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 radiating element taught in Liao and Hoegerl to be disposed on the second surface as suggested in Ito as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to protect the radiating element from being exposed to the outer surface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takizawa et al, US-20190379139-A1 (hereinafter Takizawa).
Regarding claim 9, Liao discloses wherein the second support includes a top surface that faces in a direction opposite to the second surface, and a side surface that connects the top surface to the second surface (fig. 1).
The combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose the at least one antenna includes a radiating element configured with a metal pattern disposed on the side surface.
Takizawa suggests the at least one antenna includes a radiating element (70d, fig. 1C) configured with a metal pattern disposed on the side surface (fig. 1C).
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 radiating element taught in Liao and Hoegerl on the side surface as suggested in Takizawa as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to orient the radiating direction to the desired direction depending on the requirements of the application.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Han, US-20210051797-A1.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Liao discloses the antenna module according to Claim 2, further comprising: a module substrate (111, fig. 1) on which the second support (140) that supports the sub-module and the antenna is mounted (fig. 1).
The combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose a connector that is mounted on a same surface as a surface of the module substrate on which the second support is mounted; and a third conductive film that is disposed in a region of a surface of the second support, the surface facing a side of the connector.
Han suggests a connector (1a, fig. 3, para [0073]) that is mounted on a same surface as a surface of the module substrate (10) on which the second support is mounted; and
a third conductive film (30) that is disposed in a region of a surface of the second support, the surface facing a side of the connector (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third conductive film as suggested in Han to the antenna module taught in Liao and Hoegerl as claimed for the purpose of preventing the interference between the connector and the components inside the second support.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose the antenna module according to Claim 10, further comprising: an external antenna component that is mounted on the same surface as the surface of the module substrate on which the second support is mounted, wherein the third conductive film is disposed in a region of the surface of the second support, the surface facing the external antenna component.
Han suggests the antenna module according to Claim 10, further comprising: an external antenna component (25, fig. 2) that is mounted on the same surface as the surface of the module substrate (91) on which the second support is mounted (40),
wherein the third conductive film (30) is disposed in a region of the surface of the second support, the surface facing the external antenna component (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an external antenna as suggested in Han to the antenna module taught in Liao and Hoegerl as claimed for the purpose of enabling the antenna module to operate in different frequency bands depending on the requirements of the application.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ueda, US-20180053735-A1.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Liao discloses the antenna module according to Claim 2, further comprising: a module substrate (111, fig. 1) on which the second support (140) that supports the sub-module and the antenna is mounted (fig. 1).
The combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose an external radiating element configured with a metal pattern disposed on the module substrate; and a second feed line that is disposed in the module substrate and connects one of the plurality of external terminals to the external radiating element.
Ueda suggests an external radiating element (15, fig. 1) configured with a metal pattern disposed on the module substrate (10); and a second feed line (16) that is disposed in the module substrate and connects one of the plurality of external terminals (12) to the external radiating element (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an external antenna as suggested in Ueda to the antenna module taught in Liao and Hoegerl as claimed for the purpose of enabling the antenna module to operate in different frequency bands depending on the requirements of the application.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Hoegerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al, US-20110309893-A1 (hereinafter Kawamura).
Regarding claim 13, Liao discloses the antenna module according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a second sub-module (fig. 21H shows a plurality of sub-modules in fig. 1 which comprises 120, 112-112b, 130) including a plurality of second electronic components (112a, 112b, fig. 1) each including a plurality of second internal terminals (fig. 1 above), and a third support (120) that covers and supports the plurality of second electronic components (112a-112b) to expose the plurality of second internal terminals (fig. 1 above); and
wherein the second sub-module is covered with and supported by the second support (140).
Liao does not disclose a plurality of second external terminals that are exposed at a surface of the second support opposite to a surface at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed, the plurality of second internal terminals are connected to the plurality of second external terminals.
Hoegerl suggests a plurality of second external terminals (32, 33, fig. 5) that are exposed at a surface of the second support (37), the plurality of second internal terminals (18) are connected to the plurality of second external terminals (32, 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of second internal terminals taught in Liao to connect to the plurality of second external terminals as suggested in Hoegerl as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation stems from the need to electrically connect the electronic components disposed in the first support to other components outside of the second support in order to form the circuitry for the antenna module to perform wireless communication.
The combination of Liao and Hoegerl does not disclose the plurality of second external terminals that are exposed at a surface of the second support opposite to a surface at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed.
Kawamura suggests the plurality of second external terminals (9 of second sub-module 20b, fig. 10) that are exposed at a surface of the support opposite to a surface at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed (9 of sub-module 20a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the second external terminals taught in Liao and Hoegerl to be exposed at a surface of the support opposite to a surface at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed as suggested in Kawamura, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to transmit the signals from one sub-module to another sub-module and achieve high speed data transmission between the two sub-modules (Kawamura, para [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Liao discloses wherein the second support (140, fig. 1 and 21H) includes a first part that supports the sub-module and the antenna (150, fig. 21H below), and a second part that supports the second sub-module, and the first part is bonded to the second part (fig. 21H).
PNG
media_image5.png
198
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Hoegerl and Ito as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Takizawa et al, US-20190379139-A1 (hereinafter Takizawa).
Regarding claim 19, Liao discloses wherein the second support includes a top surface that faces in a direction opposite to the second surface, and a side surface that connects the top surface to the second surface (fig. 1).
The combination of Liao, Hoegerl and Ito does not disclose the antenna includes a radiating element configured with a metal pattern disposed on the side surface.
Takizawa suggests the antenna includes a radiating element (70d, fig. 1C) configured with a metal pattern disposed on the side surface (fig. 1C).
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 radiating element taught in Liao, Hoegerl and Ito on the side surface as suggested in Takizawa as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to orient the radiating direction to the desired direction depending on the requirements of the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein a surface of the sub-module, which faces in a direction opposite to the surface of the second support at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed, faces a surface of the second sub-module, which faces in a same direction as the surface of the second support at which the plurality of external terminals are exposed, without the second support interposed therebetween.”
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claim 20 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.
Claim 20 is considered allowable due to its respective dependency on claim 14.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Nomura, WO-2010018708-A1, fig. 3e: the plurality of internal terminals are connected directly to the plurality of external terminals without using an interposer or a module substrate.
Matsumoto et al, WO-2019181590-A1, fig. 6: the plurality of internal terminals are connected directly to the plurality of external terminals without using an interposer or a module substrate.
Matsumoto et al, US-20200127635-A1, fig. 1: the plurality of internal terminals are connected directly to the plurality of external terminals without using an interposer or a module substrate.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights