Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/188,622

THIN DIELECTRIC SUBSTRATE FOR LOW THERMAL RESISTANCE AND LOW PARASITIC INDUCTANCE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 23, 2023
Examiner
MAIGA, SIDI MOHAMED
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Lumentum Operations LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
22 granted / 29 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
61
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
64.2%
+24.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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. Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8, 11, 14 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) further in view of Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) Regarding claim 1, SMEYS discloses (Fig. 1) a substrate (100), comprising: a ceramic core; a plurality of metal-filled vias (125) through the ceramic core; a first metal layer (123), on a top side of the ceramic core, including: a first metal trace (122b), over and connected to a first metal-filled via of the plurality of metal-filled vias, a second metal trace, over and connected to a second metal-filled via of the plurality of metal-filled vias, and a third metal trace, over and connected to a third metal-filled via of the plurality of metal-filled vias, wherein the second metal trace is electrically isolated from the first metal trace and the third metal trace (See annotated figure below); a thin dielectric layer (106f) on the first metal layer, wherein the thin dielectric layer has a uniform thickness, and wherein the thin dielectric layer has a low thermal resistance based on a thickness of the thin dielectric layer; and a second metal layer (120), on the thin dielectric layer, including: a first electrical contact over the first metal trace and electrically isolated from the first metal trace, a second electrical contact over the second metal trace and electrically connected to the second metal trace, and a third electrical contact over the third metal trace and electrically connected to the third metal trace, wherein the second electrical contact is electrically isolated from the first electrical contact and the third electrical contact, and wherein the thin dielectric layer is configured to separate the first metal layer and the second metal layer and form a vertical current loop between the first metal layer and the second metal layer (See annotated figure below). PNG media_image1.png 815 1435 media_image1.png Greyscale SMEYS fails to disclose that the core substrate is ceramic However, Odnoblyudov discloses (Fig. 9) a ceramic core (Abstract) SMEYS and Odnoblyudov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS to incorporate the teachings of Odnoblyudov and provide a ceramic core (Abstract). Doing so would improve thermal management and stress when compared to existing technologies (para [0026]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov fails to disclose wherein the thin dielectric layer has a uniform thickness. However, Okandan discloses (Fig. 3 - 7) wherein the thin dielectric layer (209) has a uniform thickness (See Fig. 3 – 7, and para [0032]) SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov to incorporate the teachings of Okandan and provide wherein the thin dielectric layer (209) has a uniform thickness (See Fig. 3 – 7, and para [0032]). Doing so would provide evenly electrical stability, structural protection and reduces surface recombination (a well – known property of silicon nitride). Regarding claim 2, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first electrical contact is electrically isolated from the first metal layer (see annotated figure above). Regarding claim 3, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first metal trace is electrically isolated from the second metal trace and the third metal trace, wherein the thin dielectric layer covers top surfaces and sidewalls of the first metal trace, the second metal trace, and the third metal trace, and wherein the thin dielectric layer covers exposed portions of the top side of the ceramic core (See annotated figure below). PNG media_image2.png 587 1159 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, wherein the thin dielectric layer includes a first via, through the thin dielectric layer, to provide an electrical connection between the second electrical contact and the second metal trace and a second via, through the thin dielectric layer, to provide an electrical connection between the third electrical contact and the third metal trace (See annotated figure below). PNG media_image3.png 507 1159 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, wherein SMEYS further discloses that the thin dielectric layer is a thin film coating formed on the first metal layer (para [0019]). Regarding claim 8, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, wherein Odnoblyudov further discloses that the ceramic core is formed from aluminum nitride (AIN) or aluminum oxide ( A l 2 O 3 ) (see Fig. 9 and para [0028]). Regarding claim 11, SMEYS discloses (Fig. 1) a circuit (100), comprising: a ceramic core comprising a plurality of metal-filled vias (125) through the ceramic core; a first metal layer (123), on a top side of the ceramic core, including a plurality of metal traces over and connected to the plurality of metal-filled vias (125), wherein the plurality of metal traces include one or more first metal traces and one or more second metal traces (see annotated figure below), wherein the one or more second metal traces are each electrically isolated from the rest of the plurality of metal traces; a thin dielectric (106f) on the first metal layer (123), wherein the thin dielectric layer has a uniform thickness, and wherein the thin dielectric has a low thermal resistance based on a thickness of the thin dielectric ; a second metal layer (120), on the thin dielectric (106f), including: an anode over and electrically isolated from the plurality of metal traces by the thin dielectric; a cathode over and electrically connected to at least one of the one or more second metal traces by a first via through the thin dielectric (see annotated figure below); and a ground over and electrically connected to the one or more first metal traces by a second via through the thin dielectric; and a capacitor (para [0027]) connected to the ground, wherein the thin dielectric between the first metal layer and the second metal layer provides the circuit with a low parasitic inductance and a low thermal resistance during operation (SMEYS discloses a circuit board which inherently has a ground, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can modified SMEYS to incorporate a ground over and electrically connected to the one or more first metal traces by a second via through the thin dielectric and connect the capacitor to the ground), and wherein the thin dielectric layer is configured to separate the first metal layer and the second metal layer and form a vertical current loop between the first metal layer and the second metal layer (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image4.png 756 1437 media_image4.png Greyscale SMEYS fails to disclose that the core substrate is ceramic However, Odnoblyudov discloses (Fig. 9) a ceramic core (Abstract) SMEYS and Odnoblyudov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS to incorporate the teachings of Odnoblyudov and provide a ceramic core (Abstract). Doing so would improve thermal management and stress when compared to existing technologies (para [0026]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov fails to disclose wherein the thin dielectric layer has a uniform thickness. However, Okandan discloses (Fig. 3 - 7) wherein the thin dielectric layer (209) has a uniform thickness (See Fig. 3 – 7, and para [0032]) SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov to incorporate the teachings of Okandan and provide wherein the thin dielectric layer (209) has a uniform thickness (See Fig. 3 – 7, and para [0032]). Doing so would provide evenly electrical stability, structural protection and reduces surface recombination (a well – known property of silicon nitride). Regarding claim 14, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, wherein the ceramic core is formed from aluminum nitride (AIN) or aluminum oxide ( A l 2 O 3 ) (see Fig. 9 and para [0028]). Regarding claim 15, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, wherein the thin dielectric is a thin film coating formed on the first metal layer (para [0019]). Claim(s) 6 – 7, 12 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) and Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SUH et al (US 20120080084 A1, “SUH”). Regarding claim 6, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers. However, SUH discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers (para [0021] & [0063]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and SUH are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of SUH and provide wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers (para [0021] & [0063]). Doing so would provide high dielectric strength and very low electrical conductivity (common knowledge in the art). Regarding claim 7, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer . However, SUH discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer (para [0021] & [0063]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and SUH are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of SUH and provide wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer (para [0021] & [0063]). Doing so would provide high dielectric strength and very low electrical conductivity (common knowledge in the art). Regarding claim 12, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers. However, SUH discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers (para [0021] & [0063]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and SUH are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of SUH and provide wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxynitride (AlON) or aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.01 micrometers to sixty micrometers (para [0021] & [0063]). Doing so would provide high dielectric strength and very low electrical conductivity (common knowledge in the art). Regarding claim 13, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer . However, SUH discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer (para [0021] & [0063]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and SUH are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of SUH and provide wherein a material used for the thin dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or silicon dioxide (SiO2) (para [0061]), and wherein the thickness of the thin dielectric layer is in a range from 0.3 micrometers to one micrometer (para [0021] & [0063]). Doing so would provide high dielectric strength and very low electrical conductivity (common knowledge in the art). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) and Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen (US 20170040247 A1, “Shen”) Regarding claim 9, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the substrate of claim 1, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose further comprising: a third metal layer, on a bottom side of the ceramic core, including: a first metal contact, under and connected to the first metal-filled via and the third metal-filled via, and a second metal contact, under and connected to the second metal-filled via, wherein the second metal contact is electrically isolated from the first metal contact. However, Shen discloses (Fig. 7) further comprising: a third metal layer (151A), on a bottom side of the ceramic core (700), including: a first metal contact, under and connected to the first metal-filled via and the third metal-filled via, and a second metal contact, under and connected to the second metal-filled via, wherein the second metal contact is electrically isolated from the first metal contact (see annotated figure below). PNG media_image5.png 572 1064 media_image5.png Greyscale SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and Shen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of Shen and provide further comprising: a third metal layer (151A), on a bottom side of the ceramic core (700), including: a first metal contact, under and connected to the first metal-filled via and the third metal-filled via, and a second metal contact, under and connected to the second metal-filled via, wherein the second metal contact is electrically isolated from the first metal contact. Doing so would increase the substrate density and provide a more compact design Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) and Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20150294791 A1, “Hwang”) Regarding claim 16, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein the capacitor includes a thin-film capacitor that comprises: a first layer, formed from a high-K material, on the ground; a second layer, formed from nickel, on the first layer; and a third layer, formed from a metal plating, on the second layer. However, Hwang discloses (Fig. 2B) wherein the capacitor includes a thin-film capacitor that comprises: a first layer, formed from a high-K material, on the ground (214); a second layer, formed from nickel (224), on the first layer; and a third layer, formed from a metal plating (236), on the second layer (para [0036], [0037] and [0051]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and Hwang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of Hwang and provide the capacitor includes a thin-film capacitor that comprises: a first layer, formed from a high-K material, on the ground (214); a second layer, formed from nickel (224), on the first layer; and a third layer, formed from a metal plating (236), on the second layer (para [0036], [0037] and [0051]). Doing so would allow it to fit in thin and small substrates where traditional capacitors cannot fit or are not suitable (para [0057]). Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) and Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEALE (US 20210320102 A1, “WEALE”) Regarding claim 17, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein the capacitor includes a one – dimensional capacitor array mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground by a dielectric layer. However, WEALE discloses (Fig. 3) wherein the capacitor (210) includes a one – dimensional capacitor array (211A-C) mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground (250A) by a dielectric layer (212A-C) (para [0021]). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and WEALE are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS combined with Odnoblyudov to incorporate the teachings of WEALE and provide wherein the capacitor (210) includes a one – dimensional capacitor array (211A-C) mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground (250A) by a dielectric layer (212A-C) (para [0021]). Doing so would provide a capacitor with reduced inductance that can be used in thin semiconductor devices (para [0013]). Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMEYS et al. (US 20100213601 A1, “SMEYS”) in view of Odnoblyudov et al. (US 20190181121 A1, “Odnoblyudov”) and Okandan et al. (US 20170162724 A1, “Okandan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHONG et al. (US 20160142033 A1, “CHONG”) Regarding claim 18, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan discloses the circuit of claim 11, SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan fails to disclose wherein the capacitor includes a multi-layer ceramic capacitor mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground by a dielectric layer. However, CHONG discloses (Fig. 1 & 3) wherein the capacitor includes a multi-layer ceramic capacitor (120) mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground (153a-b) by a dielectric layer (111). SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan and CHONG are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SMEYS in view of Odnoblyudov and Okandan to incorporate the teachings of CHONG and provide wherein the capacitor includes a multi-layer ceramic capacitor (120) mounted on a metal layer separated from the ground (153a-b) by a dielectric layer (111). Doing so would provide a lower parasitic inductance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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. /SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847 /STANLEY TSO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2023
Application Filed
May 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 01, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 02, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586995
ELECTRICAL APPARATUS AND PLUG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588142
HIGH-FREQUENCY ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568584
WIRING BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563665
INSULATING CIRCUIT BOARD AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE IN WHICH SAME IS USED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550257
WIRING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+9.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 29 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month