DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-11, on 5/23/25, and Species 1, Figure 2A, was elected in the reply filed on 9/26/25 is acknowledged.
In a telephonic interview on 12/4/25 with attorney Justin Brask the Species election was amended to Species 11, Figure 6E.
The claims that read upon the elected Figure 6E are claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 10. Claims 3, 5-8, and 11 read upon non-elected embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Kawakami et al, US 6,426,551.
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami (figure 1) teaches an electronic package, comprising:
a first layer 6 comprising glass (column 4, lines 50-52);
a second layer 7 comprising glass (column 4, lines 50-52) over the first layer 6; and
an inductor (layers 10 form an inductor: column 5, lines 55-61) between the first layer 6 and the second layer 7.
With respect to claim 2, Kawakami a first via 11 through the first layer 6 and coupled to a first end (top of inductor 10) of the inductor 10; a second via (not shown but connected to external conductors 12) through the second layer 7 and coupled to a second end (bottom of inductor 10) of the inductor 10.
As to claim 10, Kawakami (column 5, lines 55-61) teaches a magnetic material is provided above and below the inductor.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al, US 6,426,551, as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, though Kawakami fails to teach the inductor comprises a coil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a coil in the invention of Kawakami because a coil is a known equivalent inductor structure. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
In re claim 9, though Kawakami fails to teach Kawakami an adhesive between the first layer and the second layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an adhesive in the invention of Kawakami because an adhesive is conventionally known and used in the art to ensure a strong bond. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 12/9/25