DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" with the
"Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject" filed on 05/26/2026, have been fully considered. Specifically, Applicant’s amendment/arguments related to claim 1 “wherein the first bridge component comprises an active bridge component configured to generate a first processed electrical signal for the photonic component based on a first electrical signal from the electronic component, and wherein a signal path provided by the first bridge component comprises a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths” are not persuasive. Yu’s device (US 20210091056 A1) shows a bridge component 50 that conduct electrical signals between the processing die 324 (such as the electronic component) and the photonic package 100. In addition, Yu’s invention suggests the implementation of conductive routing with finer pitch than the conductive routing of the interconnect structures 210/230, which allows for improved high-speed transmission of electrical signals in [0079]. Then, it is obvious to include the vertical routing 245 from Jung’s device (US 20200091095 A1) to Yu’s device to obtain high-speed transmission of electrical signals having a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths.
It also noted that Applicant’s bridge is described in terms of a functional limitation, wherein the bridge component 15 produces a signal path having a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths. The structure of the Applicant’s bridge component 15 is described as active bridge as Yu’s bridge, in addition, it is described vertical conductive structures in the interconnection structure above the bridge component 15 as showed in the combination of Yu and Jung. Then, when the functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2114.I, see detail below.
Applicant’s arguments related to “Yu does not teach or suggest the specific physical layout of the present application, where a transducer (e.g., an O/E converter) and a bridge component are "one-to-one vertically stacked" to form a dedicated, purely vertical high-speed transmission channel are not persuasive because in Yu’s Fig. 24 the photonic component 100 is vertically stacked with the bridge component 50-R and it is also disclosed in [0079]. In addition, in relation to the Applicant’s arguments “Furthermore, the prior art RDL-based logic inherently relies on horizontal patterning to bridge component offsets, which is the opposite of the pure vertical alignment claimed are not persuasive because the vertical routing 245 from Jung’s device after applied to Yu’s device results in a RDL connection having vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20210091056 A1, hereinafter Yu, of the record) in view of Jung et al. (US 20200091095 A1, hereinafter Jung, of the record).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Yu discloses an electronic device (Fig. 24), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
606
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu’s Figure 24-Annotated.
a first interconnection structure (210 a third interconnect structure in [0057], Fig. 24) extending along and centered on a first axis (horizontal direction, Fig. 24);
an electronic component (324 a processing die, when 324 is closer to the photonic package 100 than the memory die 326 in [0078], Fig. 24-Annotated) disposed over the first interconnection structure (210);
a photonic component (100 a photonic package in [0079], Fig. 24) disposed over the first interconnection structure (210); and
a first bridge component (50-R an interconnect device included in 250 in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated) disposed under the first interconnection structure (210) and configured to electrically connect the electronic component (324) with the photonic component (100) through the first interconnection structure (210),
wherein the electronic component (324) is configured to transmit a first signal downwardly without passing (the signal is going up to reach the photonic package 100 in [0079], Fig. 24) the first bridge (50-R) component and the photonic component (100) is configured to transmit/receive a second signal to/from outside of the electronic device (in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated), and wherein a transmission speed of the second signal is higher than a transmission speed of the first signal (wherein 100 incorporated an optical fiber 150 to allow optical signals and/or optical power to be transferred between the photonic package 100 and an optical fiber 150 in a higher speed in [0030,0080]).
Yu does not expressly disclose the first interconnection structure comprising conductive paths extending along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, wherein the first bridge component comprises an active bridge component configured to generate a first processed electrical signal for the photonic component based on a first electrical signal from the electronic component, and wherein a signal path provided by the first bridge component comprises a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths.
PNG
media_image2.png
294
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jung’s Figure 9-Annotated.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Jung discloses the first interconnection structure (240 a connection member including 245 in [0058], Fig. 9) comprising conductive paths (245 a redistribution layer in [0058], Fig. 9) extending along and centered only on a second axis (vertical direction, Fig. 9) perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal direction, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Jung’s feature of the first interconnection structure comprising conductive paths extending along and centered only on a second axis perpendicular to the first axis to Yu’s device to perform various functions depending on a design of the redistribution layer ([0070], Jung).
The combination of Yu and Jung results in wherein the first bridge component (50-R in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu) comprises an active bridge component (in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu) configured to generate a first processed electrical signal (50-R conduct electrical signals between the processing die 324 and the photonic package 100 in [0079]) for the photonic component (100 in [0079], Fig. 24, Yu) based on a first electrical signal from the electronic component (324 in [0078], Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu),
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose wherein a signal path provided by the first bridge component comprises a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths.
However, the Applicant’s bridge is described in terms of a functional limitation, the bridge produces a signal path having a vertical path and without horizontal or lateral paths. The structure of the bridge is described as an active bridge as the combination of Yu and Jung, in addition, it is described vertical conductive structures in the interconnection structure above the bridge as showed in the combination of Yu and Jung. Then, when the functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011), See MPEP 2114.I.
Re: Claim 2, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and wherein the photonic component (100 in [0079], Fig. 24, Yu) is vertically stacked (Fig. 24, Yu) above the first bridge component (50-R in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu), and electrical communication between the photonic component and the electronic component (324 in [0078], Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu) is achieved exclusively through the first bridge component (50-R Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu) and a vertical conductive path (vertical conductive structures above 50-R, Fig. 24-Annotated, Yu) within the first interconnection structure (210 in [0057], Fig. 24, Yu).
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose wherein the electronic component is directly coupled to the first interconnection structure without an intervening carrier, and a backside surface of the photonic component is lower than a backside surface of the electronic component relative to the first interconnection structure.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Jung discloses wherein the electronic component (220 semiconductor chip in [0052], Fig. 9) is directly coupled to the first interconnection structure (240 a connection member including 245 in [0058], Fig. 9) without an intervening carrier (Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Jung’s feature of wherein the electronic component is directly coupled to the first interconnection structure without an intervening carrier to Yu’s device to perform various functions depending on a design of the redistribution layer ([0070], Jung).
Still, Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose a backside surface of the photonic component is lower than a backside surface of the electronic component relative to the first interconnection structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
930
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yu’s Figure 27-Annotated.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Yu discloses in a second embodiment, a backside surface of the photonic component (100-2 [0084], Fig. 27-Annotated) is lower than a backside surface of the electronic component (324-2 [0084] Fig. 27-Annotated) relative to the first interconnection structure (210-2 [0084], Fig. 27-Annotated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the YU’s feature of a backside surface of the photonic component is lower than a backside surface of the electronic component relative to the first interconnection structure to the combination of Yu and Jung to provides additional electrical routing ([0084], Yu).
Re: Claim 3, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 2,
wherein a backside surface of the first bridge component (50-R Yu) is substantially coplanar with a surface of an encapsulant (208 Yu), and lateral surfaces of the first bridge component (50-R Yu) are fully covered and contacted by the encapsulant (208 Yu), and wherein the active bridge component (50-R Yu) is configured to generate a second processed electrical signal ([0079], Yu) for the electronic component (324 Yu) based on a second electrical signal from the photonic component (100 Yu).
Re: Claim 4, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the first interconnection structure (210 Yu) includes a first circuit region (a region of conductive paths in 210, below 324 in Fig. 24-Annotated) and a second circuit region (a region of conductive paths in 210, below 100 in Fig. 24-Annotated), the first circuit region is between the electronic component (210 Yu)and first bridge component (50-R Yu), and the second circuit region is between the photonic component (100 Yu) and first bridge component (50-R Yu), and wherein an active surface of the photonic component (100 Yu) and an active surface of the first bridge component (50-R Yu) face toward each other (Fig. 27 Yu),
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly wherein a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed circuit density a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “difference of a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. At meantime, Jung discloses “an interconnection structure (240) comprising circuit regions having different circuits densities (245 connections are disposed in different density along the layer 240), [0058], Fig. 9, in addition, Jung discloses that the design of the interconnection structure is depending on its functions [0070]”, therefore, a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region is a result effective variable. It has been held that is not inventive to discover the optimum a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a circuit density of the second circuit region is higher than a circuit density of the first circuit region to the rest of the claimed invention to perform various functions depending on a design of the redistribution layer ([0070], Jung).
Re: Claim 5, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 4, further comprising: an optical fiber (150 an optical fiber in [0030], Fig. 24 Yu) coupled to the backside surface (150 is vertically mounted over the photonic package 100 in [0033] Yu) of the photonic component (100 Yu).
Re: Claim 6, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein an overlapping area between the photonic component (100 Yu) and the first bridge component is larger than (Fig. 24 Yu) an overlapping area between the electronic component (324 Yu) and the first bridge component (50-R Yu), and wherein the conductive paths (Jung’245 applied to Yu, in [0058], Fig. 9, Jung) of the first interconnection structure (210 Yu) are centered only on (Fig. 9, Jung) the second axis (vertical direction, Fig. 9, Jung).
Re: Claim 7, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a memory (326 a memory die in [0078], Fig. 24-Annotated Yu); and a second bridge component (50-L an interconnect device included in 250 in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated Yu) component, wherein the second bridge component (50-L Yu) comprises a passive ([0017], Yu) bridge component configured to electrically connect the electronic component (324 Yu) with the memory (326 Yu).
Re: Claim 9, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the first signal is transmitted without passing (the signal is going up to reach the photonic package 100 in [0079], Fig. 24 Yu) the second bridge component (100 Yu).
Re: Claim 10, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a second interconnection structure (230 a fourth interconnect structure in [0066], Fig. 24 Yu) extending along and centered on the first axis; and an encapsulant (208 an encapsulant in [0055], Fig. 24 Yu) disposed between the first interconnection structure (210 Yu) and the second interconnection structure (230 Yu), wherein the first bridge component is at least partially embedded (Fig. 24 Yu) in the encapsulant (208 Yu).
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose the second interconnection structure comprising conductive paths extending along and centered only on the second axis perpendicular to the first axis.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Jung discloses the second interconnection structure (240 a connection member including 245 in [0058], Fig. 9) comprising conductive paths (245 a redistribution layer in [0058], Fig. 9) extending along and centered only on the second axis (vertical direction, Fig. 9) perpendicular to the first axis (horizontal direction, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Jung’s feature of the second interconnection structure comprising conductive paths extending along and centered only on the second axis perpendicular to the first axis to Yu’s device to perform various functions depending on a design of the redistribution layer ([0070], Jung).
Re: Claim 11, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 10, further comprising: a memory (326 a memory die in [0078], Fig. 24-Annotated Yu) disposed over the first interconnection structure (210 Yu); and a second bridge component (50-L an interconnect device included in 250 in [0079], Fig. 24-Annotated Yu) at least partially embedded (Fig. 24-Annotated Yu) in the encapsulant (208 Yu).
Re: Claim 12, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: a plurality of conductive vias (206 through vias in [0066], Fig. 24, Yu) extending between the first interconnection structure (210, Yu) and the second interconnection structure (230 Yu).
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose wherein a circuit density of the first interconnection structure is higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “a circuit density of the first interconnection structure higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed circuit density of the first interconnection structure higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “difference of circuit density of the first interconnection structure higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. At meantime, Jung discloses “an interconnection structure (240) comprising a redistribution layer (245), [0058], Fig. 9, in addition, Jung discloses that the design of the interconnection structure is depending on its functions [0070]”, therefore, the circuit density of the first interconnection structure higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure is a result effective variable. It has been held that is not inventive to discover the optimum circuit density of the first interconnection structure and the second interconnection structure by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a circuit density of the first interconnection structure higher than a circuit density of the second interconnection structure to the rest of the claimed invention to perform various functions depending on a design of the redistribution layer ([0070], Jung).
Re: Claim 13, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 12,
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose wherein a height of the plurality of conductive vias (206 Yu) is greater than a height of the first bridge component (50-R Yu).
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed
“height of the plurality of conductive vias is greater than a height of the first bridge component” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed height of the plurality of conductive vias is greater than a height of the first bridge component). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “difference of height of the plurality of conductive vias is greater than a height of the first bridge component” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. At meantime, Yu discloses “height of the plurality of conductive vias are the same than a height of the first bridge component, Fig. 24, in addition, Yu discloses that the first bridge component can be formed at different heights in [0054]”, therefore, the height of the plurality of conductive vias and the first bridge component is a result effective variable. It has been held that is not inventive to discover the optimum height of the plurality of conductive vias and the first bridge component by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add height of the plurality of conductive vias greater than a height of the first bridge component to the rest of the claimed invention to optimize and improve the electrical connections of the device.
Re: Claim 14, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the second bridge component (50-L Yu) has a first surface exposed from the encapsulant (208 Yu) and contacting (Fig. 24-Annotated) the second interconnection structure (230 Yu), and wherein the first surface of the second bridge component (50-L Yu) is exclusive of contact terminals (TSVs 54 of the interconnect device 50 are optional in [0017], Yu).
Re: Claim 15, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the second bridge component (50-L Yu) includes a passive ([0017], Yu) bridge component, and a redistribution layer (RDL) (the RDL included in 210, Fig. 24 Yu) is disposed over a second surface of the second bridge component (50-L Yu) to electrically connect the electronic component (324 Yu) with the memory (326 Yu).
Re: Claim 16, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the first bridge component (50-R Yu) has a backside surface exposed from the encapsulant (208 Yu) and contacting (Fig. 24-Annotated) the second interconnection structure (230 Yu), and wherein the backside surface of the first bridge component (50-R Yu) is exclusive of contact terminals (TSVs 54 of the interconnect device 50 are optional in [0017], Yu).
Re: Claim 17, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 16, wherein the first bridge component (50-R Yu) has an active surface and a lateral surface covered (Fig. 24-Annotated Yu) by the encapsulant (208 Yu).
Claim(s) 8, 18-20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Jung and further in view of Gandhi et al. (US 20210366873 A1, hereinafter Gandhi, of the record).
Re: Claim 8, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 7, further comprising: an encapsulant (208 an encapsulant in [0055], Fig. 24 Yu) at least partially covering (Fig. 24 Yu) the first bridge component (50-R Yu) and the second bridge component (50-L Yu), wherein the encapsulant (208 Yu) supports the electronic component (324 Yu), the photonic component (100 Yu), and the memory (326 Yu); a plurality of conductive vias (206 through vias in [0066], Fig. 24, Yu) penetrating the encapsulant (208 Yu) and located laterally between the first bridge component (50-R Yu) and the second bridge component (50-L Yu).
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose a power regulating device, wherein a power path between the power regulating device and the electronic component passes through the plurality of conductive vias.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses a power regulating device (112 a chiplet including a power regulation/distribution system in [0032], Fig. 1), wherein a power path (all inputs and outputs of the 112 are routed through the active surface 126 via the interconnects 130 in [0033], Fig. 1) between the power regulating device (112) and the electronic component (104) passes through the plurality of conductive vias (130 interconnects in [0033], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Gandhi’s feature of a power regulating device, wherein a power path between the power regulating device and the electronic component passes through the plurality of conductive vias to the combination of Yu, Jung to regulate and distribute the power of the system ([0032], Gandhi).
Re: Claim 18, Yu modified by Jung discloses the electronic device of claim 10, further comprising: wherein the second interconnection structure (230 Yu) is disposed over the substrate (302 Yu);
Yu modified by Jung does not expressly disclose a first substrate; a second substrate disposed over and spaced apart from the first substrate, and two connectors disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the two connectors are non-overlapped with the electronic component along a direction substantially perpendicular to an active surface of the electronic component.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses a first substrate (134 a package substrate in [0022], Fig. 1); a second substrate (116 a RDL substrate in [0022], Fig. 1) disposed over (Fig. 1) and spaced apart from the first substrate (134), and two connectors (114L,144R signal feed throughs in [0022], Fig. 1-Annotated) disposed between the first substrate (134) and the second substrate (116), wherein the two connectors (114L,144R) are non-overlapped with the electronic component (104 a die in [0024], Fig. 1) along a direction (vertical direction, Fig. 1-Annotated) substantially perpendicular to an active surface (surface of 104, Fig. 1-Annotated) of the electronic component (104).
PNG
media_image4.png
374
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gandhi’s Figure 1-Annotated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Gandhi’s feature of a first substrate; a second substrate disposed over and spaced apart from the first substrate, and two connectors disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the two connectors are non-overlapped with the electronic component along a direction substantially perpendicular to an active surface of the electronic component to the combination of Yu and Jung to allow connection between the top and bottom substrates ([0031], Gandhi).
Re: Claim 19, Yu modified by Jung and Gandhi discloses the electronic device of claim 18,
Yu modified by Jung and Gandhi does not expressly disclose a power regulating device disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the power regulating device is overlapped with the electronic component along the direction.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses a power regulating device (112 a chiplet including a power regulation/distribution system in [0032], Fig. 1) disposed between the first substrate (134) and the second substrate (116), wherein the power regulating device (112) is overlapped with the electronic component (104) along the direction (vertical direction, Fig. 1-Annotated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Gandhi’s feature of a power regulating device disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the power regulating device is overlapped with the electronic component along the direction to the combination of Yu, Jung and Gandhi to regulate and distribute the power of the system ([0032], Gandhi).
Re: Claim 20, Yu modified by Jung and Gandhi discloses the electronic device of claim 19,
Yu modified by Jung and Gandhi does not expressly disclose wherein the power regulating device is disposed between the two connectors.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Gandhi discloses wherein the power regulating device (112 a chiplet including a power regulation/distribution system in [0032], Fig. 1) is disposed between (112 between connectors 114L and 114R, Fig. 1-Annotated) the two connectors (114L,144R).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Gandhi’s feature of wherein the power regulating device is disposed between the two connectors to the combination of Yu, Jung and Gandhi to regulate and distribute the power of the system ([0032], Gandhi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA M RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-1936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/SANDRA MILENA RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights