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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on August 7, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 4, 2024.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed August 7, 2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 12-25 remain withdrawn. The Examiner notes that claims 1-11 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the second conductor comprising a ferrite material.” Although the specification recites in para. [0036] that the concentric ground layer may be a ferrite and that the concentric ground layer may be a conductive material, ferrites including the listed example of barium ferrite are considered electrical insulators and do not typically act as conductive materials. The Examiner understands the specification to teach either that the concentric ground layer is a conductor or that it is a ferrite and it is unclear how the claimed element is both a conductor comprising a ferrite.
Claims 2-11 are rejected at least on the same basis as independent claim 1 upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeClair (US 2022/0071009 A1) in view of Gairola (Synthetic Materials, 2016).
With respect to claim 1, LeClair teaches in Fig 1D:
A package comprising:
a glass substrate (substrate 101 and liner L2, paragraph 12 “the dielectric substrate can be selected from a group of materials that can include for example, glass”, “liner L2 is preferably a dielectric material”, paragraph 14 “the dielectric material can be selected from a group that includes ... glasses”) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (top and bottom sides);
and a coaxial structure (F, L2, and L1) extending from the first side of the glass substrate to the second side of the glass substrate (101 and L2), the coaxial structure including:
a first conductor (paragraph 51, “conductive material F”) at a center of the coaxial structure and extending from the first side of the glass substrate (101 and L2) to the second side of the glass substrate (101 and L2),
a second conductor (paragraph 49, “first liner L1 may be a conductive material) surrounding the first conductor (F), the second conductor (L1) extending from the first side of the glass substrate (101 and L2) to the second side of the glass substrate (101 and L2),
and a portion of the glass substrate (L2) located between the first conductor and the second conductor.
LeClair fails to teach:
And the second conductor comprising a ferrite material,
Gairola teaches that a conductive composite comprising barium ferrite may be used to shield against electromagnetic interference (abstract “Barium ferrite was incorporated into polyaniline matrix along with expanded graphite (EG) in order that the resultant conductive composite can be used for electromagnetic shielding.”) LeClair teaches in para. [0095] that a benefit of a coaxial thru-via Is that the signal current is shielded by the ground shield. It would be obvious to modify LeClair by Gairola to use the known material of a conductive barium ferrite composite with good EMI shielding properties as the second conductor for the purpose of using a conductor with strong shielding effectiveness and/or because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima-facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, LeClair teaches:
wherein the portion of the glass substrate between the first conductor and the second conductor electrically isolates the first conductor and the second conductor (paragraph 17 “layer L2 comprising a liner ring of insulating material”).
With respect to claim 3, LeClair teaches in Fig 4:
wherein the first conductor is a signal conductor (paragraph 59 “The coating of dielectric has a hole centered on the coax fill of diameter, D3. This hole can be filled with conductive material, establishing contact with the microstrip signal conductor”) and the second conductor is a ground conductor (paragraph 59, “the ground conductor contacts the coax outer conductor L1”). In addition, the examiner notes that “signal conductor” and “ground conductor” do not appear to impart any distinguishing structure over the prior art conductors F and L1; therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation in view of MPEP 2112.01-I
With respect to claim 4, LeClair teaches:
wherein the first conductor in the second conductor include copper (paragraph 111 “the conductive material can be selected from a group including silver, gold, and copper”, paragraph 16, “the inner most conductive material can be selected from a group comprising gold, copper, silver, metal alloys, drawn wire, and various eutectic solder alloys”) or a copper alloy
With respect to claim 7, LeClair teaches:
wherein the second conductor (L1) surrounding the first conductor (F) is concentric to the first conductor (Fig. 1D)
With respect to claim 8, LeClair teaches:
wherein the second conductor (L1) concentric to the first conductor (F) further includes a shape of the second conductor concentric to the first conductor (L1) in a selected one of: a circle (Fig. 1D, L1 is a circle), a polygon, or an irregular shape.
With respect to claim 11, LeClair teaches:
wherein one or more walls of the first conductor (F) or the second conductor (L1) are tapered (paragraph 117 ‘tapered passageway in a substrate”) from the first side of the substrate to the second side of the substrate
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeClair (US 2022/0071009 A1) and Gairola (Synthetic Materials, 2016) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hurwitz (US 2013/0319738 A1).
With respect to claim 5, LeClair/Gairola teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claims 5 depends. LeClair/Gairola is silent to:
wherein a diameter of the first conductor is at least 10 μm
Hurwitz teaches in Fig. 3:
wherein a diameter of the first conductor (central post 306) is at least 10 μm (paragraph 81)
With respect to claim 6, LeClair/Gairola is silent to:
wherein a thickness of the second conductor ranges from 10 μm to 50 μm
Hurwitz teaches in paragraph 81:
“the central post 306 has a diameter of at least 30 microns, the torroidal post 308 has a diameter of at least 150 microns, and the separating tube 310 of dielectric material has a thickness of at least 30 microns”
Since the dielectric material and central post are within the toroidal post and a cross section of the coaxial structure includes two layers of dielectric material and two metal layers, the metal layers that make up the toroidal post can be inferred to be at least 30 microns. Therefore, Hurwitz teaches:
wherein a thickness of the second conductor (toroidal post 308) ranges from 10 μm to 50 μm (“At least 30” teaches greater than or equal to 30, and 30 microns falls within and anticipates the range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hurwitz into the device of LeClair/Gairola to make a coaxial structure with a first conductor of diameter greater than 10 μm and a second conductor with thickness from 10 μm to 50 μm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify LeClair/Gairola in the manner set forth above for the purpose of creating “IC interposers that have a high density of multiple conductive layers and vias that are electrically insulated from each other by a dielectric material” (paragraph 4 of Hurwitz) and/or “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” per MPEP 2144.05”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeClair (US 2022/0071009 A1) and Gairola (Synthetic Materials, 2016) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Valant (US 2011/0095435 A1).
With respect to claim 9, LeClair/Gairola teaches all limitations of the independent claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends. LeClair/Gairola fails to teach:
wherein the coaxial structure further includes a third conductor proximate to the first conductor and surrounded by the second conductor.
Valant teaches in Figs. 14-15, paragraph 55:
wherein the coaxial structure further includes a third conductor (middle conductor 52) proximate to the first conductor (signal conductor 50a) and surrounded by the second conductor (outer shield conductor 60a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Valant into the device of LeClair/Gairola to include a third conductor between the first and second conductor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify LeClair/Gairola in the manner set forth above so that the “electrical conductors can be connected to different voltages or ground” (Abstract of Valant).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeClair (US 2022/0071009 A1) and Gairola (Synthetic Materials, 2016) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Edelstein (US 2006/0027934 A1).
With respect to claim 10, LeClair/Gairola teaches all limitations of the independent claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends. LeClair/Gairola fails to teach:
a second portion of the glass substrate within the first conductor, the second portion of the glass substrate extending from the first side of the glass substrate to the second side of the glass substrate.
Edelstein teaches in Fig 2A, paragraph 38:
a second portion of the glass substrate (second via material 210) within the first conductor (annular ring 215), the second portion of the glass substrate extending from the first side of the glass substrate to the second side of the glass substrate (top and bottom sides).
Edelstein further teaches that the second via material should be CTE-matched to the substrate (Abstract) and comprises silicate glass (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Edelstein into the device of LeClair/Gairola to include a second portion of glass within the first conductor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify LeClair/Gairola in the manner set forth above “so that undesirable effects of thermal mismatch will be minimized while still realizing the desired conductive properties in the through-via” (paragraph 38 of Edelstein).
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 reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radhakrishnan (US 2021/0104475 A1) teaches a similar device in which a coaxial via structure through a substrate that may be glass includes a concentric ferrite core around a conductive via.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights