DETAILED ACTION
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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
RE: the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments have been fully considered but are moot as Applicant’s amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 10-15 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 10 includes “a first conductive structure that extends entirely through the glass core,” “a third conductive structure that extends entirely through the glass core,” “wherein the first conductive structure and the third conductive structure are substantially parallel and are not physically coupled,” and this is unclear because based on the claim, the first conductive structure and the third conductive structure are physically coupled by the glass core.
Further, with respect to FIG. 3B, the instant application discloses “a ring resonator, which has a first conductive structure 326 that is parallel to but not electrically coupled with a second conductive structure 328,” [0039]. The application further discloses “A coupling distance 336 between the first conductive structure 326 and the second conductive structure 328 may be varied to control the energy coupled between conductive structures 326 and 328. Once energy enters conductive structure 328, it would travel in 330, 331,332, 334. The energy would travel back and forth and once the waves in the resonator loop acquire a phase difference that is a multiple of 2n, the waves would interfere either constructively or destructively,” [0041].
Accordingly, in the context of FIG. 3B, the first and second conductive structures are described as not being electrically coupled, yet the instant application describes energy, i.e., electrical energy, coupled between the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure, [0041], and as these structures are separated by glass material in the glass core 302, these structures are understood as being capacitively coupled which is a form of electrical coupling. Accordingly, the terminology “not physically coupled” (as in claim 10) and “not electrically coupled” (as in the instant specification) is understood as meaning “capacitively coupled or not connected by any conductive material.”
Additionally, claim 10 includes “the glass core” which has no prior antecedent. Accordingly, this will be interpreted as “a glass core.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US8922301B1 (“Williams”).
RE: Claim 1, Williams discloses An apparatus (10 in FIGs. 6-7, 8F, Col. 4, lines 46-65) comprising:
a glass core (14 in FIG. 7; 14 forms a dielectric substrate, Col. 2, lines 23-26; the substrate in which the resonator 10 is embedded is composed of glass, Col. 2, lines 30-35) having a first side (top side of 14 in FIG. 7) and a second side (bottom side of 14 in FIG. 7) opposite the first side;
a first conductive structure (80, Col. 4, lines 45-55) and a second conductive structure (82a, Col. 5, lines 1-16) within the glass core, the first conductive structure extending entirely through the glass core (FIG. 7 shows 80 extending entirely through 14), and the second conductive structure extending only partially through the glass core (FIG. 7 shows 82a extending only partially through 14); and
a conductive trace (23) on the first side or the second side of the glass core (FIG. 7 shows 23 on top side of 14), the conductive trace coupling the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure (FIG. 6 shows 23 coupling 80 and 82a).
RE: Claim 2, Williams discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first conductive structure or the second conductive structure is a selected one of: a conductive via or a conductive plane (80 is a via, Col. 4, lines 46-52; 82a is a via, Col. 5, lines 1-6).
RE: Claim 9, Williams discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a selected one of: a resonator, a filter, a capacitor, a circulator, or a directional coupler (10 is a resonator, Col. 4, lines 46-50).
RE: Claim 10, Williams discloses A directional coupler apparatus comprising:
a first conductive structure (80, Col. 4, lines 45-55) that extends entirely through a glass core (14 in FIG. 7; 14 forms a dielectric substrate, Col. 2, lines 23-26; the substrate in which the resonator 10 is embedded is composed of glass, Col. 2, lines 30-35; FIG. 7 shows 80 extending entirely through 14);
a second conductive structure (82a in FIG. 7, Col. 5, lines 1-16) within the glass core, the second conductive structure extending only partially through the glass core (FIG. 7 shows 82a extending only partially through 14);
a third conductive structure (83 in FIGs. 6-7, 8F, Col. 4, lines 46-56) that extends entirely through the glass core (FIG. 8F shows 83 extending entirely through 14), wherein the first conductive structure and the third conductive structure are substantially parallel and are not physically coupled (FIG. 6 shows 80, 83 are substantially parallel and are insulated from each other by dielectric material in the gap 90 and in 14, and are therefore capacitively coupled or not connected by any conductive material); and
a conductive trace (23) electrically coupled with the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure at the first side of the glass core (FIG. 7 shows 23 at the top side of 14; FIG. 6 shows 23 electrically coupled with 80 and 82a.
RE: Claim 11, Williams discloses The directional coupler apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first conductive structure or the third conductive structure is a selected one of: a conductive via or a conductive plane (80 is a via, Col. 4, lines 46-52; 83 is a via, , Col. 4, lines 46-52).
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 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 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 1 or 10, further in view of US 20090309675 A1 (“Bavisi”).
RE: Claim 8, Williams does not explicitly disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure are separated by 20 μm or less.
However, Williams discloses Radio frequency micro-structured resonators are typically used to optimize the transmission and filtering features for microwave applications, Col. 1, lines 13-15.
In the same field of endeavor, Bavisi discloses as shown in FIG. 2, the two inner portions 135 of the top-side interconnect, the two contact layers 125 and the two vias 120 are each respectively separated from one another by a distance Dsep. In embodiments, the distance Dsep may be between approximately 5 μm and 20 μm, [0027], see FIG. 2.
Bavisi further discloses the distance Dsep may be varied to alter the filter characteristics of the bandpass filter 100, [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between the first conductive structure 80 and the second conductive structure 82a to be between 5 μm and 20 μm as taught by Bavisi in order to adjust or tune the filter characteristics of the resonator 10.
RE: Claim 12, Williams does not explicitly disclose The directional coupler apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first conductive structure and the third conductive structure are separated by distance of less than 20 μm.
However, Williams discloses Radio frequency micro-structured resonators are typically used to optimize the transmission and filtering features for microwave applications, Col. 1, lines 13-15.
In the same field of endeavor, Bavisi discloses as shown in FIG. 2, the two inner portions 135 of the top-side interconnect, the two contact layers 125 and the two vias 120 are each respectively separated from one another by a distance Dsep. In embodiments, the distance Dsep may be between approximately 5 μm and 20 μm, [0027], see FIG. 2.
Bavisi further discloses the distance Dsep may be varied to alter the filter characteristics of the bandpass filter 100, [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between the first conductive structure 80 and the second conductive structure 82a to be between 5 μm and 20 μm such as 5 μm to 19 μm as taught by Bavisi in order to adjust or tune the filter characteristics of the resonator 10.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams.
RE: Claim 13, Williams discloses The directional coupler apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first conductive structure, the second conductive structure, and the conductive trace include copper (vias 80-83 and the top surface conductor 23 comprise copper, Col. 4, lines 56-60; Accordingly, this is understood to mean the vias 80, 81, 82a, 82b, 83 and the top surface conductor 23 comprise copper; Alternatively, it would have been obvious to make the vias 80, 81, 82a, 82b, 83 out of copper as taught by Williams in order to simplify manufacturing by making the vias out of the same conductive material).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 10, further in view of LPKF Laser & Electronics, Micro-Machining of Thin Glass for Innovative Applications, 2020 ("LPKF" – previously cited).
RE: Claim 14, Williams does not explicitly disclose The directional coupler apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first conductive structure, the second conductive structure, and the third conductive structure are created in the glass core using a laser-assisted etching process.
However, Williams discloses To support mechanical and laser machining of the PCB 14, the diameter of the vias 80-83 is preferably selected to be about 75 μm or greater, Col. 5, lines 20-25.
Williams further discloses the via holes 95 and 96 are drilled with a laser drill. However, other drilling methods, such as, for example, pulse energy drills or drill presses may be used in other embodiments, Col. 6, lines 53-57, see FIGs. 8B-8F.
In the same field of endeavor, LPKF discloses a laser-assisted etching process with glass cores (LPKF, page 3, first column: "LIDE can create several thousands of blind vias - i.e. with a limited depth - or through glass vias (TGV) per second with incredibly high precision and accuracy").
The acronym LIDE as used in LPKF stands for Laser Induced Deep Etching (see uppermost paragraph of pg. 2), which as explained in LPKF, page 3 left column constitutes laser-assisted etching.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the process of making the conductive structures 80, 82a, 82b, 83 to utilize the LIDE process as taught by LPKF in order to attain a rapid process of creating vias through glass, reducing manufacturing time.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 10, further in view of US20050093749A1 (“Purr”).
RE: Claim 15, Williams does not explicitly disclose The directional coupler apparatus of claim 10, wherein the length of the first conductive structure or the third conductive structure is substantially equal to a wavelength of the resonance frequency divided by 4.
In the same field of endeavor, Purr discloses the length of the printed conductor 122 is selected to correspond to a quarter of the desired resonant wavelength and is thus λeff/4, [0035].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the first conductive structure 80 or the third conductive structure 83 to have a length equal to a quarter wavelength as taught by Purr in order to tune the dynamic response of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANGUIANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/MICHAEL ANGUIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899