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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/ Restrictions
Applicant's election of group II without traverse: claims 1-16, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 12/08/2025”, withdrawal of non-elected claim(s) 17-25 is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 1-25, in “Claims - 12/08/2025”, pending for prosecution, of which claim(s) 17-25 is/are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 7-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 recite traces being “electrically non-functional trace”. In para. [0002] of the specification, the applicant admits that traces are “that carry signals and power between the components”. That is, it is an inherent electrical characteristic of a trace to transmit signals or power. The examiner understands that sometimes – for various reasons – traces are left “floating” – that is, they are not connected to anything. However, even when they are floating, its electrical characteristic to transmit signal and supplying power is still present. Therefore, the phrase “electrically non-conductive trace” goes against the inherent electrical characteristic of a trace.
In the context of circuits, a trace is understood in the art being a “pathway” to connect two conductive materials. Therefore, it is not understood what is meant by the phrase “electrically non-functional trace”. The recitation appears to mean “electrically non-conductive trace” which is opposite the meaning of a trace.
Claim 9 recites:
“each of the plurality of traces comprising:”
“a first sidewall having a first portion of a photosensitive material there on”,
“a second sidewall having a second portion of a photosensitive material thereon”
“a second substrate attached to the plurality of traces, the first and second substrates and the plurality of traces forming a plurality of air gaps between respective ones of the plurality of traces”.
There appears to be two issues:
It is unclear if the recitation “a second substrate attached to the plurality of traces, the first and second substrates and the plurality of traces forming a plurality of air gaps between respective ones of the plurality of traces” is related to “each of the plurality of traces comprising”. If so, it is not understood how a single trace can have “plurality of traces”.
If “a second substrate attached to the plurality of traces, the first and second substrates and the plurality of traces forming a plurality of air gaps between respective ones of the plurality of traces” is related to “each of the plurality of traces comprising”, it is not clear how a plurality of air gaps can be formed by each trace.
Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claims 7-8, 10-16, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP 2173.06 II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-6 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 1, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The claim 1 is amended. The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20140070380 A1 to Chiu) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 1 as indicated below: a first trace (Left 330 – Fig. 3 – [0034] – “a solder bond 330 (e.g., solder bump) or pillar”) on a first substrate (328 – [0034] – “a ground plane 328”) and comprising a first sidewall (right sidewall of left 328); a second trace (right 330) on the first substrate (328) and comprising a second sidewall (left sidewall of right 330), the second trace spaced a distance from the first trace with the second sidewall facing the first sidewall (that is, left sidewall of right 330 faces right sidewall of left 330 as shown in Fig. 3); a second substrate (314 – [0031] – “a bridge substrate 314”) on the first (left 330) and second (right 330) traces, the first (328) and second (314) substrates and the first (left 330) and second traces (right 330) forming an air gap (332 – [0035] - “an air gap 332”) between the first (left 330) and second (right 330) traces, but not the limitations of “first and second portions of a photosensitive material on the first sidewall and the second sidewall, respectively; and” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim 1 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-6, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898