Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on September 26th, 2025. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 26th, 2023, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 5-6, “Remarks”) that Chopra teaches forming a rigid electronic component and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to DePaula as its teachings of a liquid or a gel would not result in the solid final structure required by Chopra. The processes are entirely incompatible as Chopra’s high-temperature sintering is unsuitable for the liquid inks of DePaula.
DePaula states that the various considered materials for inks include liquid inks that cure by drying, pastes and powders deposited and then heat cured/fused, and inks flash cured with high intensity bursts of light, instantaneously sintering the ink into a contiguous metallic surface ([0022]). Other inks and their respective curing processes may be employed ([0022]). DePaula clearly teaches that the various materials considered are properly treated resulting in a semi-permanent state so that the traces maintain electrical contact ([0022]). Therefore, DePaula does not teach away from Chopra’s goal of forming a rigid electronic component. DePaula also supports that high-temperature sintering is an appropriate means for curing a deposited ink.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 claim(s) 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.
In this instance, Claim 1 recites the limitation “unitizing the first and second layers in a unitizing operation such that the liquid or gel remains in a liquid or gel state after the unitizing” in lines 11-12. Applicant’s filed specification only states that layers may be unitized through curing or by surface melting and joining ([0080]). Curing is typically understood as a process that hardens a material, as confirmed by DePaula ([0022], curing includes drying, heating, fusing, and exposure to light). Applicant does not sufficiently define the unitizing and curing process to provide an alternative description of these terms defined in the art. Therefore, applicant does not have support for the above limitation.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. Patent 5,724,727; hereinafter Chopra) in view of DePaula et al. (2012/0081868 A1; hereinafter DePaula).
Regarding Claim 1, Chopra (figs. 2 and 4) teaches a method comprising:
Stacking a first layer of insulating material (Col. 3, Line 51; 50) having one or more passages (opening filled with 43) on a substrate (Col. 3, Line 51; 10);
depositing a deformable conductive material (Col. 3, Line 36; 43) in at least one of the passages in the first insulating layer (50),; and
stacking a second layer of insulating material (Col. 3, Line 56; 51) on the first layer of insulating material (50), wherein the second layer of insulating material (51) at least partially encloses (part of 51 covers a part of 43, see fig. 4) the deformable conductive material (43) in the at least one passage in the first layer of insulating material (50), and unitizing the first (50) and second layers (51) in a unitizing operation (50 and 51 are both sintered to form the interconnect structure 45).
Chopra doesn’t explicitly teach the deformable conductive material comprises a liquid or a gel and a unitizing operation such that the liquid or gel remains in a liquid or gel state after the unitizing.
However, DePaula (fig. 4) teaches the deformable conductive material ([0022], 004) comprises a liquid (liquid inks) or a gel and a unitizing operation ([0022], various curing processes) such that the liquid or gel remains in a liquid or gel state after the unitizing ([0022], inks remain in a semi-permanent state after curing and are not said to be solidified). DePaula also teaches that liquid inks and powders are comparable materials for deformable conductive materials ([0022]). Since DePaula teaches the functional equivalence of liquid inks and powders as deformable conductive materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute liquid ink for the powder of Chopra.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use liquid ink as a deformable conductive material in Chopra, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
discloses the claimed invention except for [difference]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to [describe modification], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 2, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches at least one of the passages in the first layer of insulating material (50) passes through the entire thickness (see fig. 4) of the first layer of insulating material (50).
Regarding Claim 3, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches depositing the deformable conductive material (43) in at least one of the passages in the first insulating layer (50) comprises: overfilling (Col. 2, Lines 59-60; portion 22 not sintered) the at least one passage with deformable conductive material (43); and removing (Col. 3, Lines 3-7; portions not sintered are reclaimed) excess deformable conductive material from a surface of the first layer of insulating material (50).
Regarding Claim 5, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches the second layer of insulating material (51) has one or more passages (opening filled with 46), and the method further comprises: depositing the deformable conductive material (Col. 3, Line 47; 46) in at least one of the passages in the second insulating layer (51); and stacking a third layer of insulating material (Col. 3, Lines 60-61; 52) on the second layer of insulating material (51), wherein the third layer of insulating material (52) at least partially encloses (part of 52 covers a part of 46, see fig. 4) the deformable conductive material (46) in the at least one passage in the second layer of insulating material (51), and unitizing the first second and third layers (50, 51, and 52 are all sintered to form the interconnect structure 45).
Regarding Claim 6, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches the at least one of the passages in the first insulating layer (50) communicates (openings housing 43 and 46 are connected, see fig. 4) with the at least one of the passages in the second insulating layer. (51)
Regarding Claim 7, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches at least one of the passages in the second layer of insulating material (51) passes through the entire thickness (see fig. 4) of the second layer of insulating material (51).
Regarding Claim 8, Chopra (figs. 1-2) teaches the third layer of insulating material (52) has one or more passages (opening filled with 48), and the method further comprises: depositing the deformable conductive material (Col. 3, Line 47; 48) in at least one of the passages in the third insulating layer (52); and stacking a fourth layer of insulating material (Col. 3, Line 65; 53) on the third layer of insulating material (52), wherein the fourth layer of insulating material (54) at least partially encloses (part of 53 covers a part of 48, see fig. 4) the deformable conductive material in the at least one passage in the third layer of insulating material (52), and unitizing the first, second, third and fourth layers (50, 51, 52, and 53 are all sintered to form the interconnect structure 45).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra and DePaula as applied to Claim 3 above, in further view of Jiang et al. (US Patent 6,163,957; hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding Claim 4, Chopra doesn’t explicitly teach removing excess deformable conductive material from the surface of the first layer of insulating material comprises removing a release layer from the surface of the first layer of insulating material.
However, Jiang (fig. 4) teaches removing excess deformable conductive material (Col. 6, Lines 22-27; 20) from the surface of the first layer of insulating material (Col. 4, Lines 2-5; 14) comprises removing a release layer (Col. 7, Lines 66-67; 16) from the surface of the first layer of insulating material (14). Jiang also teaches that the release layer may protect the surface of the insulating material below it among other numerous benefits (Col. 8, Lines 1-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for depositing conductive material of Chopra to include the use of a release layer of Jiang to protect the upper surfaces of insulating layers while depositing conductive material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 January 16, 2026