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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner will exam claims 8-13 over prior art after clarifications.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2-5, 8-9, 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “balun structure” in claim 1 line 2, claims 2-5 line 1, claim 8 lines 2 and 12, claim 9 line 2, claim 12 lines 4 and 6, respectively. It appears that “planar” should be there for consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “the single-ended side” in lines 5-6. It appears that “the” should be “a”. 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.
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 8-13 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 8 recites the limitation "the pair of linear parallel conductors" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “pair of linear parallel conductors” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 9-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8 because each of dependent claims 9-13 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 8.
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 1-7, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rofougaran (US 2009/0212879, hereafter Rofougaran) in view of Tiemeijer et al. (US 2023/0198114 , hereafter Tiemeijer) and Trotta (US 2016/0116523, hereafter Trotta).
Regarding claim 1, Rofougaran (‘879) discloses that A planar balun structure for routing millimetre-wave { Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207; [0021] lines 7-9 (the frequency of operation of the wireless system 150 may be extended to the 60 GHz range.); [0031]lines 2-4 (a differential output power amplifier, the PA 213, to the balanced inputs 201A and 201B of the balun 200)}, the balun structure comprising:
a single-ended side {Fig.3 item 207};
a differential side {Fig.3 items 201A-B; [0031]lines 2-4 (a differential output power amplifier, the PA 213, to the balanced inputs 201A and 201B of the balun 200)};
a { Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207},
wherein the {Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207}.
However, Rofougaran (‘879) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “A planar balun structure for routing millimetre-wave radar signals” and “a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side”. In the same field of endeavor, Tiemeijer (‘114) discloses that
A planar balun structure for routing millimetre-wave radar signals {title (planar balun); Fig.6; [0005] lines 1-2 (In some millimeter (mm) wave packages used for automotive RADAR,), 7 (balun); [0027] lines 2-7 (baluns, the communication channels may use frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) devices that operate in a frequency range of 76 to 81 GHz when used for automotive RADAR applications.)};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rofougaran (‘879) with the teachings of Tiemeijer (‘114) {use balun in radar signal channel} to use balun in radar signal channel. Doing so would include signal vias and corresponding baluns in communication channels (e.g. operate in a frequency range in automotive RADAR applications) so as to cost-effectively measure performance using equipment with probes in free space, as recognized by Tiemeijer (‘114) {[0002] lines 3-4 (A cost-effective and performance-driven packaging technique); [0005] lines 7-9 (measure performance using equipment with probes, or to connect to the standard microstrip based antenna to radiate power in free space); [0027] lines 1-7 (Each of signal vias 106-112, 138-114 and corresponding baluns 114-120, 146-152 are part of a single communication channel. the communication channels may use frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) devices that operate in a frequency range of 76 to 81 GHz when used for automotive RADAR applications.)}.
Rofougaran (‘879) discloses the claimed invention except for ”radar” signals. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use “A planar balun structure for routing millimetre-wave radar signals”, since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to use a planar balun structure on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to use a planar balun structure for the purpose of routing radar signals.
However, Tiemeijer (‘114) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side”. In the same field of endeavor, Trotta (‘523) discloses that
a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side {Fig.5 (λ/2); Fig.8 (λ/2); [0029] line 7 from bottom (differential lines 156/160, 158/162); [0034] lines 14-19 (a λ/2 coupling element 164 directly or indirectly connecting the first and second coupling elements 156, 160 to a pad 114 of the semiconductor die 102 where is the wavelength, single-ended termination at the semiconductor die 102, )};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Rofougaran (‘879) and Tiemeijer (‘114) with the teachings of Trotta (‘523) {set distance between differential sides in connection with a single-end as λ/2} to set distance between a differential side in connection with a single-end as λ/2. Doing so would allow simplifying the design of the transmit path verification circuit so as to obtain low-cost, short-range communication and ranging systems integrate the antenna either on chip or embedded in the semiconductor package, as recognized by Trotta (‘523) {[0002] lines 6-8 (Some low-cost, short-range communication and ranging systems integrate the antenna either on chip or embedded in the semiconductor package), 10-12 (the internal antenna connections must be verified and also whether there is an electromagnetic field present.); [0034] lines 17-20 (The λ/2 coupling element 164 allows for single-ended termination at the semiconductor die 102, simplifying the design of the transmit path verification circuit included in the die 102.)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Rofougaran (‘879), Tiemeijer (‘114), and Trotta (‘523) discloses that in the balun structure,
the half-wavelength path forms a circular conductor path around the single-ended side { see Rofougaran (‘879) Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207; see “half-wavelength” in the rejection of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Rofougaran (‘879), Tiemeijer (‘114), and Trotta (‘523) discloses that in the balun structure,
the single-ended side comprises a central conductorand a radial conductor path extending radially between the central conductor and the half-wavelength path { see Rofougaran (‘879) Fig.3 item 207; see “half-wavelength” in the rejection of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Rofougaran (‘879), Tiemeijer (‘114), and Trotta (‘523) discloses that in the balun structure,
the differential side comprises a pair of linear parallel conductors, the radial conductor path being oriented at an angle to the pair of linear parallel conductors { see Rofougaran (‘879) Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Rofougaran (‘879) does not explicitly disclose that “the half-wavelength path (204) is between around 0.6 mm and 2 mm long”. In the same field of endeavor, Tiemeijer (‘114) discloses that in the balun structure,
the half-wavelength path (204) is between around 0.6 mm and 2 mm long {[0019] lines 7-8 from bottom (the intended operating frequency, such as, for example, 78 gigahertz (GHz),); Examiner’s note: wavelength of 78 GHz is 3.844mm, therefore half wavelength is 1.922mm, which is “between around 0.6 mm and 2 mm long”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Rofougaran (‘879) and Trotta (‘523) with the teachings of Tiemeijer (‘114) {use balun in radar signal channel (e.g. operating frequency is 78GHz)} to use balun in radar signal channel (e.g. operating frequency is 78GHz). Doing so would include signal vias and corresponding baluns in communication channels (e.g. operate in a frequency range in automotive RADAR applications) so as to cost-effectively measure performance using equipment with probes in free space, as recognized by Tiemeijer (‘114) {[0002] lines 3-4 (A cost-effective and performance-driven packaging technique); [0005] lines 7-9 (measure performance using equipment with probes, or to connect to the standard microstrip based antenna to radiate power in free space); [0027] lines 1-7 (signal vias 106-112, 138-114 and corresponding baluns 114-120, 146-152 are part of a single communication channel. the communication channels may use frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) devices that operate in a frequency range of 76 to 81 GHz when used for automotive RADAR applications.)}.
Regarding claim 6, as modified above, Rofougaran (‘879) discloses that A multilayer packaged integrated circuit device {Fig.3; Fig.4; [0012] lines 1-2 (Fig.3, multi-layer balun,); [0013] lines 1-2 (Fig.4, a multi-layer package with an integrated balun)} comprising:
a first layer comprising a balun structure for routing millimetre-wave { Fig.3 items 201A-B, 207; [0021] lines 7-9 (the frequency of operation of the wireless system 150 may be extended to the 60 GHz range.); [0031]lines 2-4 (a differential output power amplifier, the PA 213, to the balanced inputs 201A and 201B of the balun 200)}; and
a second layer comprising a conductor connected to the single-ended side of the balun structure by a conductive via connecting the first and second layers {Fig.3 item 207; Fig.4 item 207, 415; [0033] lines 8-9 (The + and - balanced inputs 201A and 201B, the DC bias tap 207,); [0040] line 1 (metal interconnects 415A and 415B)},
wherein the balun structure comprises:
the single-ended side;
a differential side;
a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side and surrounding the single-ended side.
{The claim limitations above and “routing millimetre-wave radar signals” are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, Rofougaran (‘879) discloses that A millimetre-wave {Fig.1 items 162 (balun), 164 (multi-layer package); [0021] lines 7-9 (the frequency of operation of the wireless system 150 may be extended to the 60 GHz range.)} comprising:
the multilayer packaged integrated circuit device of claim 6 {see the rejection of claim 6}; and
a PCB conductively connected to the conductor of the second layer by a solder ball {Fig.4 items 401 (chip), 411 (solder balls)}.
{The claim limitation “A millimetre-wave radar assembly” above is the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Rofougaran (‘879) discloses the claimed invention except for ”radar” assembly. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a millimetre-wave assembly in radar, since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to use a millimetre-wave assembly on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to use a millimetre-wave assembly for the purpose of radar assembly.
Regarding claims 14-17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-5, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14-17 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-5, respectively, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,982,609 discloses that “a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side” {Fig.3}, which further support the rejection of claims 1, 6-8.
US 9331664 discloses that “a half-wavelength path connecting the differential side to the single-ended side” {Fig.5}, which further support the rejection of claims 1, 6-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights