DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 03/30/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 03/30/2026 in reply to the final rejection mailed on 02/20/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16 & 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “the first portion has a U-shaped cross-section” is not shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s specification. The amendment including the “curved concave portion” and the “curved convex top surface” do not show the formation of the U-shape required by the limitation in Claims 3 & 11.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16 & 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position closest to a surface…" in lines 3-4 and the limitation “the material of the aluminum circuit layer is made of aluminum” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally in the limitation “a surface among the plurality of metal circuit layers” it is unclear whether Applicant intended to state “a top surface” since that is shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a bottom surface of the first portion…” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 established the limitation “a flat bottom surface” and it is unclear whether Claim 2’s limitation is defining a new surface or should state “the flat bottom surface of the first portion.”
Claims 3, 5-8 are rejected as being dependent on rejected Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the position closest to a surface…" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally in the limitation “a surface in the plurality of metal circuit layers” it is unclear whether Applicant intended to state “a top surface” since that is shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a bottom surface of the first portion…” in line 2. Claim 9 established the limitation “a flat bottom surface” and it is unclear whether Claim 10’s limitation is defining a new surface or should state “the flat bottom surface of the first portion.”
Claims 10, 11, 13-16 & 19 are rejected as being dependent on rejected Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, & 19 would be allowable were the 112(a) & 112(b) rejections to be overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding the amended limitation of claims 1 & 9, “the aluminum circuit layer comprises a curved concave portion… wherein a central portion of the first portion has a curved convex top surface and a flat bottom surface,” the prior art of record (Yu & Yu C) neither anticipates nor renders obvious the amended claimed limitation in the entirety of the subject matter of claim 1 and overcomes the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16 & 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive over the prior art of record (combination of Yu & Yu C). Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. 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.
/FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights