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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application filed on September 08, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 27, 2023 and May 26, 2025 have been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Applicants must continue to submit prior art references throughout the patent application process. A supplemental IDS must be submitted if prior art is discovered through a foreign patent application or an International Patent Search, or a related application before a prosecution closes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species G and Species 6 encomssing claims 1-9 and 11-14 with traverse of in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. all the disclosed embodiments pertain to the same technical field and that examining all claims and embodiments together would not impose an undue search burden on the examiner This is not found persuasive because
The question as to whether or not inventions overlap in scope is not whether the species share some limitations. In fact, if such were the case, no restriction between species with a linking or generic claim would ever be proper. Clearly, such an interpretation would not be consistent with restriction practice or double patenting practice as a whole. Rather, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention. The species are independent or distinct because species has different structural arrangement as specified in description of each species such as, Arrangement or structure of specie A having structure of a first substrate portion and interlayer portion with first conductive pad is rectangular between two through holes in figure 1 and first conductive pad covering entirely the first substrate portion in figure 1 is different variant from arrangement or structure of specie B having a structure of a first substrate portion and interlayer portion with first conductive pad is tapered between two through holes in figure 1 first conductive pad is rectangular between two through holes; and first conductive pad covering the first substrate portion excepts ends of the first substrate portion in figure 1 is different variant from In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
And furthermore, the classification of a particular invention in a class and subclass is not to be construed as a complete field of search. Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. For example, the prior art applicable to one specie would not likely be applicable to another specie. Such as, Arrangement or structure of species 1 having similar shaped and sized rectangular though holes with conductive material provided on partial on the first conductive pads and both through hole wherein conductive material contacts side of the each through which is opposite to the side of the each thorough holes at the first conductive pad has different structural arrangement than arrangement or structure of species 4 in figure 9 (iii) wherein different sized rectangular though holes with conductive material provided on partial on the first conductive pads and both through hole wherein conductive material do not contact side of the each through which is opposite to the side of the each thorough holes at the first conductive pad . Therefore, It requires different field of search (e.g. employing different search queries). Also, the prior art applicable to one specie would not likely be applicable to another specie
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter or species.
Claims 3-5 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Rejection of claim 3, the limitations “at least two wide parts, and the at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively.” are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
It is not clear exactly how at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively. Because It defines multiple meaning wherein it is not clear or supported in specification. Note that specification clearly state in figure 8 that each respective two wide parts disposed within respective one of the two though holes. However, claim mentions that at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively which has multiple meaning not supported by the specification and elected figure 8 , for example, how two wide parts are disposed within the three or more through holes, see figure 8.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite or unclear. Proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claims 4-5, these claims are rejected by the same reason applied to the rejection of claim 1 above.
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-AlA) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all rejections set forth in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Bigl et al. (US20250380362, herin referred to as Bigl).
Rejection of claim 1, Bigl (fig. 1 or 3) discloses an electrical connection structure, comprising:
a first substrate (a substrate at 3); a first conductive pad (38 or 37) disposed on the first substrate, wherein the first conductive pad comprises a first top surface (a top surface of 38 or 40);
a second substrate (a substrate at 7 or 10); a second conductive pad (12 or 8) disposed on the second substrate, wherein the second conductive pad comprises a top second surface (a top surface of 12 or 8);
at least two through holes passing through the first substrate and exposing a portion of the second top surface (at least two though holes at 34 or 36); and
a conductive material, wherein a portion of the conductive material is disposed within the at least two through holes, and the conductive material electrically connects the first conductive pad and the second conductive pad (at least two conducive via material 34 or 36 electrically connect 38 or 40 to 12 or 8).
Rejection of claim 3, Bigl (fig. 1 or 3) discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the conductive material comprises at least two wide parts, and the at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively (see 37 has multiple wide parts extending from vertical parts of though holes. Note that claim is not clear under USC 112; however, this rejection is given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above ).
Rejection of claim 4, Bigl (fig. 1 or 3) discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least two through holes has a concave part respectively, and each of the concave parts corresponds one of the at least two wide parts of the conductive material (see 37 has multiple wide parts extending from vertical parts of though holes creating concave angle part. Note that claim is not clear under USC 112 above as dependent on claim 3; however, this rejection is given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above ).
Rejection of claim 6, Bigl (fig. 1 or 3) discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein in a top view of the electrical connection structure, at least a portion of the first conductive pad is disposed between the at least two through holes (see top view in figures 1 and 3 of Bigl where at least portion of pad 38 or 40 between two conductive via).
Rejection of claim 13, Bigl (fig. 1 or 3) discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the conductive material directly contacts an outer sidewall of each of the at least two through holes (see the figures of Bigl).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-9,11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bigl.
Rejection of claim 8, Bigl discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the at least two through holes have an irregular sidewall respectively.
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connection structure of Bigl to have through holes with irregular sidewall in Bigl; and by having that it will increase contact resistant between conductive via material and side wall so that conductive via material would not easily come out and increase connection or attachment reliability between them.
Rejection of claims 9 and 14, Bigl discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the at least two through holes have an inclined sidewall respectively (claim 9); and wherein a bottom width in a direction of one of the at least through holes is greater than a top width in the direction of the one of the at least through holes (claim 14)
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connection structure of Bigl to have two taper conducive via in Bigl and It is well known and old that through holes have an inclined sidewall so that conductive via material have inclined surface which used for adjusting current capacity that passing from one end to other end of the substrate.
Rejection of claim 11, Bigl discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein in a top view of the electrical connection structure, the at least two through holes respectively have a rectangular shape, or a rectangle-like shape.
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connection structure of Bigl by having the embossed area with different type of configurations herin rectangular like shape since applicants have presented no explanation that these particular configurations of the embossed area are significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces between two edges. Additionally, it is known and old that through holes of conductive vias have rectangular like shape as design choice to electrically connect two substrates or boards. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigl in view of Kato et al. (US20220272837 herein referred to as Kato).
Rejection of claims 3-4, Bigl discloses the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the conductive material comprises at least two wide parts, and the at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively (claim 3); and wherein the at least two through holes has a concave part respectively, and each of the concave parts corresponds one of the at least two wide parts of the conductive material (claim 4).
Kato discloses wherein the conductive material comprises at least two wide parts, and the at least two wide parts are disposed within the at least two through holes respectively (claim 3); and wherein the at least two through holes has a concave part respectively, and each of the concave parts corresponds one of the at least two wide parts of the conductive material (claim 4). (Via having two wide parts and concave parts, see figure 1 of Kato; Note that claim is not clear under USC 112 above; however, this rejection is given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connection structure of Bigl to have arrangement of wide and concave parts of each via structure as taught by Kato and by having that it will increase contact resistant between conductive via material and side wall so that conductive via material would not easily come out and increase connection or attachment reliability between them; also Kato states that According to aspects of the present invention, there can be provided a circuit board that achieves strong bonding of a thermal via to an insulating layer. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Rejection of claim 5, Bigl and Kato disclose the electrical connection structure according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein each of the concave parts and the at least two wide parts are adjacent to the second conductive pad.
Examiner makes official notice that end of conductive via of first circuit board directly connect to land or pad of the second circuit board to electrically connect terminal or pad of first circuit board to other circuit board (Note that claim is not clear under USC 112 above as dependent on claims 3-4; however, this rejection is given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical connection structure of Bigl to end of conductive via of first circuit board directly connect to land or pad of the second circuit board which result in Bigl and Kato have each of the concave parts and the at least two wide parts are adjacent to the second conductive pad to electrically connect or communicate terminal or pad of first circuit board to pad of other circuit board.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case, all of which disclose various electrical connection structure assemblies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 7, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as claim objections.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday.
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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847