DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed 21 January 2026. Claims 1-25 are currently pending; claims 14-20 stand withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Xu does not disclose a sandwich structure since “there is no middle layer and there are no distinct top and bottom layers.” (Remarks, pp. 7-8.) Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, it is noted that the preamble of the claim includes the transitional phrase “comprising” and indicates that the claim is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP § 2111.03(I). Additionally, the “sandwich-structured composite” is recited as “comprising” the elements in the following lines of the claim, and as such is also open-ended. The structure as illustrated in Fig. 8 of Xu discloses the limitations of the claim as described in the rejection below - a first thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112; Fig. 8 - top layer of 801 above cylindrical structure containing electrically conductive filler, see ¶ 0109); a second thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112; Fig. 8 - layer under cylindrical structure); and a core layer (¶¶ 0109, 0113; Fig. 8 - cylindrical structure) between the first thermosetting polymer layer and the second cured thermosetting polymer layer, the core layer comprising: a conductive metal (¶ 0113); and a polymer (¶ 0109). Applicant also argues “the cylindrical material shown in Fig. 8 and described in ¶¶ [0109]-[0113] is not a layer, but rather a filler distributed within a polymer matrix. Because the cylindrical material is not a layer, and because there is no top layer or bottom layer, FIG. 8 and ¶¶ [0109]-[0113] of Xu cannot disclose a sandwich structure as recited in claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons as stated above; the cylindrical material is considered a layer and contains material distinct from and is surrounded by a first (top) and second (bottom) thermosetting polymer layer, thus disclosing the recited elements of claim 1.
Applicant also argues Zhang teaches away from combining the materials of Zhang with the electrical-conducting/thermal-insulating materials of Xu. (Remarks, p. 10.) Examiner respectfully disagrees; Xu discloses a different polymer (not PDMS) to form the conductive filler containing layer (reading on the recited “core layer”)(Xu, ¶¶ 0109, 0113), and as such, the modification of the core layer of Xu with the teachings of Zhang would not run contrary to the teachings identified therein. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have looked to the teachings of Zhang to improve the electrical conductivity of the core layer of Xu.
Applicant’s arguments as to the amended limitations of claim 1 are addressed by the modified rejections below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-13 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0214284 A1 to Xu et al. in view of US 2013/0056689 A1 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”) and US 4,806,409 to Walter et al. (hereinafter “Walter”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Xu (Fig. 8) discloses an interconnect, comprising: a sandwich-structured composite, comprising: a first cured thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112); a second cured thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112); and a pre-dried core layer (¶¶ 0109, 0113) between the first cured thermosetting polymer layer and the second cured thermosetting polymer layer, the pre-dried core layer comprising: a conductive metal (¶ 0113); and a polymer (¶ 0109).
Examiner notes that the terms “cured” (as recited in “first cured thermosetting polymer layer” and “second cured thermosetting polymer layer”) and “pre-dried” (as in “pre-dried core layer”) are directed towards the process of making the thermosetting polymer layers or the core layer. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "first cured thermosetting polymer layer," “second cured thermosetting polymer layer” and “pre-dried core layer” only requires a first thermosetting polymer layer, second thermosetting polymer layer, and core layer, respectively, which does not distinguish the invention from the combination of Xu, Zhang, and Walter, who teach the structure as claimed.
Xu fails to expressly disclose the pre-dried core layer comprises 80 weight % (wt %) to 95 wt % of the conductive metal. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses an electrically conductive core layer comprising 80 weight % (wt%) to 95 wt% conductive metal (¶ 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the materials of Zhang in the interconnect of Xu for the purpose of providing a core layer with improved electrical conductivity (Zhang, ¶ 0012).
Xu (Fig. 8) discloses wires 804 (¶ 0108) connected to the core layer, projecting outside of the sandwich-structure composite (Fig. 8), for connection of the interconnect to external components (Fig. 8; ¶ 0108), however, Xu and Zhang fail to expressly disclose a foil positioned on the first cured thermosetting polymer layer, connected to the pre-dried core layer. In the same field of endeavor, Walter discloses utilizing foil positioned on an interconnect to provide connection between the interconnect and external components (col. 4, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize foil as disclosed by Walter, in the interconnect of Xu and Zhang and positioned on the first thermosetting polymer layer connected to the core layer as recited, for the purpose of providing connection to external components in an art-recognized, alternative way.
Regarding claim 2, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, wherein each thermosetting polymer layer comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Xu, ¶ 0112).
Regarding claim 3, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the conductive metal comprises silver (Ag) flakes (Zhang, ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 4, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Xu, ¶¶ 0109, 0112).
Regarding claim 5, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the pre-dried core layer has a thickness between 50 μm and 110 μm.
Regarding claim 6, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the sandwich-structured composite has a thickness between 150 μm and 350 μm.
Regarding claim 7, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the sandwich-structured composite has a thickness between 200 μm and 300 μm.
Regarding claim 8, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the pre-dried core layer has a conductivity of at least 1.05*10.sup.5 S.Math.cm.sup.−1.
Regarding claim 21, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the pre-dried core layer has a resistivity between 5 .omega.cm and 15 .omega.cm.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above thicknesses, conductivity range, resistivity range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the recited thicknesses are considered result effective variables because they affect the performance and overall dimensions of the interconnect; the recited core layer conductivity is considered a result effective variable because it affects the capacity and performance of the interconnect; the recited core layer resistivity is considered a result effective variable because it affects the capacity and performance of the interconnect. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the above result effective variables for the purpose of adjusting the size and performance characteristics of the interconnect in order to provide an interconnect component sized to meet design specifications with the desired functionality and capacity.
Regarding claim 9, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the sandwich-structured composite is capable of being stretched to 120% of an original length of the sandwich-structured composite at 50% strain without losing electrical properties (this limitation is considered functional language; Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the structure as recited in the claim as currently drafted, thus the structure of Xu, Zhang, and Walter is presumed capable of the functionally defined limitations of the claimed structure. MPEP § 2114 (I)).
Regarding independent claim 10, Xu (Fig. 8) discloses an electronic device comprising an interconnect, comprising: a sandwich-structured composite, comprising: a first cured thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112); a second cured thermosetting polymer layer (¶¶ 0109, 0112); and a pre-dried core layer (¶¶ 0109, 0113) between the first cured thermosetting polymer layer and the second cured thermosetting polymer layer, the pre-dried core layer comprising: silver (Ag) (¶ 0113); and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (¶ 0109, 0112).
Examiner notes that the terms “cured” (as recited in “first cured thermosetting polymer layer” and “second cured thermosetting polymer layer”) and “pre-dried” (as in “pre-dried core layer”) are directed towards the process of making the thermosetting polymer layers or the core layer. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "first cured thermosetting polymer layer," “second cured thermosetting polymer layer” and “pre-dried core layer” only requires a first thermosetting polymer layer, second thermosetting polymer layer, and core layer, respectively, which does not distinguish the invention from the combination of Xu, Zhang, and Walter, who teach the structure as claimed.
Xu fails to expressly disclose the pre-dried core layer comprises 80 weight % (wt %) to 95 wt % Ag. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses an electrically conductive core layer comprising 80 weight % (wt%) to 95 wt% Ag (¶ 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the materials of Zhang in the interconnect of Xu for the purpose of providing a core layer with improved electrical conductivity (Zhang, ¶ 0012).
Xu also fails to expressly disclose: wherein the interconnect connects at least two circuit elements in an integrated circuit (IC). Xu does disclose use in various applications, including electronics packaging and wafer processing (¶¶ 0006-08). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interconnect of Xu and Zhang to connect at least two circuit elements in an integrated circuit (IC) for the purpose of providing electrical connection in an art recognized manner and to produce a functional electronic device (see, e.g., Xu ¶¶ 0006-08; Zhang, ¶ 0005).
Xu (Fig. 8) discloses wires 804 (¶ 0108) connected to the core layer, projecting outside of the sandwich-structure composite (Fig. 8), for connection of the interconnect to external components (Fig. 8; ¶ 0108), however, Xu and Zhang fail to expressly disclose a copper foil positioned on the first cured thermosetting polymer layer, connected to the pre-dried core layer. In the same field of endeavor, Walter discloses utilizing copper foil positioned on an interconnect to provide connection between the interconnect and external components (col. 4, lines 24-30, 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize copper foil as disclosed by Walter, in the interconnect of Xu and Zhang and positioned on the first thermosetting polymer layer connected to the core layer as recited, for the purpose of providing connection to external components in an art-recognized, alternative way.
Regarding claim 11, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the first cured thermosetting polymer layer and the second cured thermosetting polymer layer comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Xu, ¶ 0112).
Regarding claim 12, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the pre-dried core layer comprises 80 wt % to 90 wt % silver (Ag) (Zhang, ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the silver (Ag) is present in the form of flakes (Zhang, ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 22, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the pre-dried core layer has a resistivity between 5 .omega.cm and 15 .omega.cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above resistivity range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the recited resistivity range is considered a result effective variable because the capacity and performance of the interconnect. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the above result effective variable for the purpose of adjusting the performance characteristics of the interconnect in order to provide an interconnect component meeting design specifications with the desired functionality and capacity.
Regarding claim 23, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the interconnect of claim 1, wherein the sandwich-structured composite exhibits negative AR/Ro values after 1000 bending cycles (this limitation is considered functional language; Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the structure as recited in the claim as currently drafted, thus the structure of Xu, Zhang, and Walter is presumed capable of the functionally defined limitations of the claimed structure. MPEP § 2114 (I)).
Regarding claim 24, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the sandwich-structured composite exhibits negative AR/Ro values after 1000 bending cycles (this limitation is considered functional language; Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the structure as recited in the claim as currently drafted, thus the structure of Xu, Zhang, and Walter is presumed capable of the functionally defined limitations of the claimed structure. MPEP § 2114 (I)).
Regarding claim 25, Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the sandwich-structured composite is capable of being stretched to 120% of an original length of the sandwich-structured composite at 50% strain without losing electrical properties (this limitation is considered functional language; Xu, Zhang, and Walter disclose the structure as recited in the claim as currently drafted, thus the structure of Xu, Zhang, and Walter is presumed capable of the functionally defined limitations of the claimed structure. MPEP § 2114 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
20 February 2026
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813