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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 and 09/09/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. 0062 recites “[t]he PCB 1 comprises a first major surface 1a and an opposite second major surface 2a.” 2a should read 1b.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim recites “PCB-GH” instead of “PCB”. 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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites a first major surface and a second major surface for both the printed circuit board (PCB) and the antenna module and it is unclear when the claim limitation refers to the major surfaces of the PCB or the antenna module.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 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 1 recites the limitation "the conductive second major surface of the antenna module" and “the conductive layer of the first major surface”, however, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the conductive layer of the first major surface” and “the at least one waveguide aperture”, however, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al. (US 20150364804).
Tong et al. disclose;
Regarding claim 1:
(in Figs. 14 and 15) an antenna arrangement (200) comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (10), having a first major surface (along 1) and an opposite second major surface (along 2), the PCB (10) further comprising a plurality of solder balls (120) soldered on the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10), the PCB (10) further comprising a conductive layer (60) connecting the solder balls (120) at their bases (50),
an antenna module (100 without 10) having a first major surface (along 59) and an opposite second major surface (along the opening 110), wherein the second major surface (along the opening 110) is electrically conductive (along 75) and comprises at least one waveguide opening (95/96) communicating with at least one antenna aperture (58) arranged on the first major surface (along 59) for transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves of an operation wavelength λ, wherein the antenna module (100 without 10) is arranged with the second major surface (along 2) facing the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10),
wherein the solder balls (120) are arranged to form an electromagnetic band gap (EBG) structure (defined by the periodically arranged solder balls, 120) together with the conductive second major surface (along the opening 110 and the conductive 75) of the antenna module (100 without 10) and the conductive layer (60) of the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10), and wherein the EBG structure (defined by the periodically arranged solder balls, 120) delimits a waveguiding space (defined by 35, 95; Para. 0002, Lines 8-10),
the antenna arrangement (200) further comprising:
a transmitting and/or receiving component (20); arranged on the PCB (10) arranged on the PCB (100) so as to communicate with the waveguiding space (defined by 35, 95).
Regarding claim 4:
the transmitting and/or receiving component (20) is arranged on the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10) in the waveguiding space (defined by 35, 95).
Regarding claim 5:
the transmitting and/or receiving component (20) is mounted to the PCB (10) using soldering elements (defined by 120).
Regarding claim 8:
the antenna module (100 without 10) is arranged with the second major surface (along 2) facing the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10) such that there is a gap, G, (defined by the height of 10) between at least one solder ball of the plurality of solder balls (120) and the conductive second major surface (along the opening 110 and the conductive 75) of the antenna module (100 without 10).
Regarding claim 14:
the antenna module (100 without 10) is realized as a single metal layer (75).
Regarding claim 15:
the antenna module (100 without 10) comprises multiple layers (45, 75), wherein each layer is made of metal (75) or made of a non-metal material (45) coated with a metal (defined by 75).
Regarding claim 16:
the antenna module (100 without 10) is made of a non-metal material (45) and coated with a metal (75).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2-3, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Ali et al. (US 20210218125).
Regarding claim 2:
Tong et al. is silent on that the transmitting and/or receiving component is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB and communicates with the waveguiding space through at least one throughgoing opening extending through the PCB.
Ali et al. disclose (in Fig. 4) the transmitting and/or receiving component (405) is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB (450) and communicates with the waveguiding space (430) through at least one throughgoing opening (403A-430C) extending through the PCB (405).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the transmitting and/or receiving component is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB and communicates with the waveguiding space through at least one throughgoing opening extending through the PCB as taught by Ali et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of effectively reducing the signal leakage from the signal channel and improving signal isolation (Para. 0016, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 3:
Tong et al. disclose the transmitting and/or receiving component (20) is a downwards-firing component (defined by 24 consisting of: a transceiver circuit, a receiver circuit and a transmitter circuit to push signal downward as shown in the figures – Para. 0061, Lines 1-3), the downwards firing component (defined by 24) comprising an attachment side (along 28) and being configured to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals from the attachment side (along 28; Para. 0060, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8:
Tong et al. are silent on that the gap G between the second major surface of the antenna module and the at least one solder ball is less than λ divided by four, less than λ divided by eight or less than λ divided by ten.
Ali et al. disclose the gap G (defined by the h, the distance between 415 and the PCB surface interface with 460) between the second major surface of the antenna module (defined by 450 and 460) and the at least one solder ball (415) is approximately λ divided by four (Para. 0029, Lines 4-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the gap G between the second major surface of the antenna module and the at least one solder ball is less than λ divided by four as taught by Ali et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of achieving desire antenna performance (Para. 0029, Lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 12:
Tong et al. disclose the at least one waveguide aperture (58) in the antenna module (100 without 10) is transversely offset from the at least one throughgoing opening (58; See Fig. 14; Para. 0071, Lines 12-14 - the hole 58 may be located at an offset from the center location of the RF waveguide 110 a) wherein the waveguiding space (defined by 35, 95) extends transversely, between the conductive second major surface (along the opening 110 and the conductive 75) of the antenna module (100 without 10) and the conductive layer (60) of the first major surface (along 1) of the PCB (10).
Tong et al. is silent on that the transmitting and/or receiving component is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB and communicates with the waveguiding space using at least one throughgoing opening.
Ali et al. disclose (in Fig. 4) the transmitting and/or receiving component (405) is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB (450) and communicates with the waveguiding space (430) using at least one throughgoing opening (403A-430C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the transmitting and/or receiving component is arranged on the second major surface of the PCB and communicates with the waveguiding space using at least one throughgoing opening as taught by Ali et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of effectively reducing the signal leakage from the signal channel and improving signal isolation (Para. 0016, Lines 4-5).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Seok et al. (US 20140111394).
Regarding claim 6 and 7:
Tong et al. are silent on that each of the soldering elements has a diameter which is smaller than the diameter of the solder balls as required by claim 6; and the soldering elements are connected to individual conductors, the individual conductors being isolated from each other as required by claim 7.
Seok et al. disclose (in Fig. 2) each of the soldering elements (defined by the solder elements connecting IC 104 to the antenna package 108) has a diameter which is smaller than the diameter of the solder balls (106 connecting the antenna package with the PCB 102); the soldering elements (defined by the solder elements connecting IC 104 to the antenna package 108) are connected to individual conductors (defined by the conductor in the circuit trace assembly 110), the individual conductors (defined by the conductor in the circuit trace assembly 110) being isolated from each other (See Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement each of the soldering elements has a diameter which is smaller than the diameter of the solder balls and the soldering elements are connected to individual conductors, the individual conductors being isolated as taught Seok et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of providing both a mechanical and electrical coupling (Para. 0034, Lines 9-10).
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Shoji et al. (US 20120042515).
Regarding claim 10 and 11:
Tong et al. are silent on that the solder balls are cored solder balls comprising a core coated with a solder material as required by claim 10; and
the first major surface of the PCB comprises a solder mask layer, the solder mask layer having a plurality of apertures corresponding to the locations of the solder balls as required by claim 11.
Shoji et al. disclose (in Figs. 7) the solder balls (defined by 11-14) are cored solder balls (Para. 0011, Lines 5-7) comprising a core (11) coated with a solder material (14); and
the first major surface of the PCB (1) comprises a solder mask layer (114a), the solder mask layer (114a) having a plurality of apertures (6) corresponding to the locations of the solder balls (defined by 11-14).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the solder balls are cored solder balls comprising a core coated with a solder material and the first major surface of the PCB comprises a solder mask layer, the solder mask layer having a plurality of apertures corresponding to the locations of the solder balls as taught by Shoji et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of achieving an attachment suitable for a fine circuit board, and can provide an electronic instrument having a high degree of integration and high reliability (Para. 0100, Lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 18:
Tong et al. are silent on that the solder balls have been formed using reflow soldering.
Shoji et al. disclose the solder balls have been formed using reflow soldering (Para. 0004, Lines 6-9; Para. 0005, Lines 6-10; Para. 0006, Lines 1-4; Para. 0010, Lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the solder balls have been formed using reflow soldering as taught by Shoji et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of providing a method of producing a circuit board that can bond electronic components without slanting the electronic components and simplify the steps (Para. 0014, Lines 2-5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Tong et al. (US 20150364829; hereafter referred to as Tong et al. ‘829).
Regarding claim 17:
Tong et al. are silent on that the antenna module has a maximum thickness that is less than 2λ, less than λ, less than λ divided by two or less than λ divided by three.
Tong et al. ‘829 disclosed (in Fig. 9) the antenna module (14) has a maximum thickness (defined by the distance between 30 and 42) that is less than λ divided by three (Para. 0036, Lines 54-56).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the antenna module has a maximum thickness that is less than 2λ, less than λ, less than λ divided by two or less than λ divided by three as taught by Tong et al. ‘829 into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of achieving enhanced radiation efficiency if the RF coupling arrangement and reducing adiation losses of the RF coupling arrangement (Para. 0035, Lines 17-20).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Boeck et al. (US 20130241059).
Regarding claim 19:
Tong et al. are silent on that a diameter of each solder ball is between λ divided by six and λ divided by three.
Boeck et al. disclose (in Figs. 6A and 6B) a diameter (defined by the distance between the antenna, 608 and the reflector, 622) of each solder ball (610) is between λ divided by six and λ divided by three (Para. 0061, Lines 15-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the diameter of each solder ball is between λ divided by six and λ divided by three as taught by Boeck et al. into the device of Tong et al. for the benefit of achieving increase impedance bandwidth of the integrated antenna structures (Para. 0064, Lines 14-15).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804).
Regarding claims 20
Tong et al. are silent on that a transverse separation distance between each solder ball is at least λ divided by six.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to set the transverse separation between each solder ball especially since the distance is used to shift the stopband toward lower frequencies (when decreased) and shifts the stopband toward higher frequencies (when increased) especially since design consideration would have been knowledge within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the design consideration.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US 20150364804) in view of Blech et al. (US 20170324135).
Regarding claim 21:
Tong et al. are silent on that the PCB comprises a mounting feature configured to align with a mounting feature on the antenna module, wherein the antenna arrangement further comprises a plurality of solder balls soldered to the first major surface of the PCB-GH around the mounting feature.
Blech et al. disclose (in Fig. 1) the PCB (110) comprises a mounting feature (116 in 110) configured to align with a mounting feature (110 in 1) on the antenna module (120), wherein the antenna arrangement (100) further comprises a plurality of solder balls (130) soldered to the first major surface (113) of the PCB (110) around the mounting feature (116).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the PCB comprises a mounting feature configured to align with a mounting feature on the antenna module, wherein the antenna arrangement further comprises a plurality of solder balls soldered to the first major surface of the PCB around the mounting feature as taught by Blech et al. into the device Tong et al. for the benefit of achieving an antenna arrange that is slightly easier to manufacture, has less losses (because of a lower number of transitions) and is useful for use as a narrowband antenna (Para. 0060, Lines 7-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
