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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0020121 (“Paulotto” or “P”) in view of US 9,806,422 (“Garcia” or “G”).
1: P teaches a device package (that of fig 9) comprising: a first antenna (40A) comprising a first portion (90A).
Nevertheless, P fails to teach a second portion spaced apart from and electrically coupled to the first portion for signal transmission, wherein a thickness of the first portion is substantially the same as a thickness of the second portion in a cross-sectional view perspective. However, P teaches that using a parasitic antenna over an antenna can broaden antenna bandwidth (see fig 10 and 0098). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a parasitic antenna over 40A in the fashion of fig 10, thereby providing for the recited limitation. The motivation would have been to broaden the bandwidth of 40A.
Nevertheless, P fails to teach that the device package is a semiconductor device package.
However, G teaches including antennas as part of a semiconductor device package (abstract, fig 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to integrate the antenna of P as part of a semiconductor device package. The motivation would have been to provide an integrated antenna device package that can be easily installed or replaced in a large communication system.
2: P teaches a second antenna (40C) disposed over the first antenna (as shown).
3: P fails to teach a third antenna disposed over the second antenna and configured to electrically coupled to the second antenna. However, P teaches that using a parasitic antenna over an antenna can broaden antenna bandwidth (see fig 10 and 0098). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a parasitic antenna over 40C in the fashion of fig 10, thereby providing for the recited limitation. The motivation would have been to broaden the bandwidth of 40C.
4: P teaches a conductive layer (that of 64A and C) disposed under the first antenna and the second antenna, wherein the conductive layer is electrically connected to the first antenna through a first conductive via (64A is connected to 40A by 124A), and the conductive layer is electrically connected to the second antenna through a second conductive via (64B is connected to 40C by 124C).
5: P teaches that the first conductive via contacts the first antenna, and the second conductive via contacts the second antenna (as shown).
6: P fails to teach that the first antenna further comprises a third portion spaced apart from and electrically coupled to the first portion for signal transmission, wherein a thickness of the first portion is substantially the same as a thickness of the third portion in the cross-sectional view perspective. However, P teaches that using a parasitic antenna over an antenna can broaden antenna bandwidth (see fig 10 and 0098). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a second parasitic antenna over 40A in the fashion of fig 10, thereby providing for the recited limitation. The motivation would have been to even further broaden the bandwidth of 40A.
7: The modified device of claim 6 would further comprise a second antenna (40C) vertically overlapping the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion of the first antenna (the parasitic antennas of 40A would be located near 40A and beneath 40C).
8: The modified device of claim 3 would be a semiconductor device package comprising: a first antenna (40A) configured for operating in a first frequency and having at least one recess (130) from a top view perspective (as shown); and a second antenna (40C) overlapping the first antenna and configured for operating in a second frequency different from the first frequency (40C is smaller than 40A).
9: P teaches that the first frequency is lower than the second frequency (40C is smaller than 40A), and an area of the first antenna is greater than an area of the second antenna (as shown).
10: P fails to teach that the first frequency is higher than the second frequency, and an area of the first antenna is less than an area of the second antenna. However, it was old and well-known that any antenna can be scaled to operate at any frequency. Thus, 40A could be scaled to operate at 40C’s frequency, and vice versa. To do so would be nothing more than the simple substitution of which antenna is operating at which frequency, to produce the same frequencies of operation, with an expectation of success.
11: The modified device of claim 3 would be such that the first antenna comprises a plurality of first antenna elements (40A and its parasitic), and the at least one recess comprises a plurality of recesses at corner regions of the first antenna elements (40C has two driving vias like 124C, one shown and one not, in order to support two polarizations, as shown in fig 7; The two driving vias are shown in a corner region in fig 7, similarly to Applicant’s own driving vias).
12: P teaches that the plurality of recesses are arranged in a row (similarly to those of fig 7) substantially parallel to an extending direction of the plurality of first antenna elements (the element would extend along the line joining the driving vias).
13: The modified device of claim 3 would be such that the first antenna comprises a plurality of first antenna elements (40A and its parasitic elements), and a width of the at least one recess is less than a width of at least one of the first antenna elements (the width of 130 is less than the width of 40A, as shown).
14: The modified device of claim 3 would be such that the first antenna comprises a plurality of first antenna elements (40A and its parasitic elements), the at least one recess comprises a plurality of recesses (the two recesses like 130 in 40A for the two polarizations, and corresponding recesses in 40A’s parasitic elements), and a number of the recesses is greater than a number of the first antenna elements (there would be two recesses for each element).
15: The modified device of claim 3 would be a semiconductor device package comprising: a layer (that of 92) having a first edge and a second edge (figs 6, 7, and 11 illustrate that 92 is large, but nothing is infinitely large, so 92 must have a surrounding edge; Any edge can be divided into two separate edges); and a first antenna (40A) disposed over the layer and having a first edge and a second edge adjacent to the first edge (as illustrated for the patch in fig 7).
Nevertheless, P fails to teach that the second edge of the layer 92 is substantially perpendicular to the first edge, wherein extending directions of the first edge and the second edge of the first antenna are non-parallel to extending directions of the first edge and the second edge of the layer.
However, P teaches using layers with perpendicular edges (fig 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide that the second edge of 92 is substantially perpendicular to the first edge. To do so would have been nothing more than the simple substitution of one known edge shape for another, to produce predictable results.
In addition, P teaches that layer 92 is large (by using wavy edge lines if figs 6, 7, and 11 to show that 92 extends indefinitely). Persons of skill know that indefinitely distant edges will play substantially no electromagnetic role in the operation of an antenna, including in P’s antenna. Thus, persons of skill will appreciate that any relative orientation of 92’s edges with those of 40A or its parasitic elements would be acceptable for the operation of P’s antenna. In addition, it was old and well-known that rectangles can be oriented relatively askew of each other. Thus, it would have been obvious to orient 40A and its parasitic elements askew relative to 92’s edges. To do so would have been nothing more than the simple substitution of one known way of orienting for another, to obtain predictable results.
16: The modified device described in regard to claim 15 would further comprising a second antenna disposed over the first antenna (one of 40A’s parasitic elements) and having a first edge and a second edge adjacent to the first edge of the second antenna (as shown in fig 10), wherein extending directions of the first edge and the second edge of the second antenna are non-parallel to the extending directions of the first edge and the second edge of the layer (as described above).
17: P teaches that an extending direction of the first edge of the first antenna is substantially parallel to an extending direction of the first edge of the second antenna, and an extending direction of the second edge of the first antenna is substantially parallel to an extending direction of the second edge of the second antenna (as shown in fig 9, 40A and 40A are aligned).
18: P teaches that a distance between the first edge of the layer and the first edge of the first antenna is less than a distance between the first edge of the layer and the first edge of the second antenna (40C is further away form 92 than 40A, as shown).
19: P teaches that the second antenna overlaps the first antenna (as shown), the first edge of the second antenna is recessed with respect to the first edge of the first antenna (40C is smaller than 40A), and the second edge of the second antenna is recessed with respect to the second edge of the first antenna (40C is smaller than 40A).
20: P teaches that the first antenna has two polarized ports (as shown in fig 7), the two polarized ports are arranged along a straight line non-parallel to the extending directions of the first edge and the second edge of the first antenna (as shown in fig 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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.
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights