DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 1A and 2a, corresponding to claims 1-4, 9 and 14, in the reply filed on 1/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden between the species. This is not found persuasive because there is serious burden. The serious burden exists because they are different embodiments based upon their varying shapes and/or layouts.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 states “the first connection electrode is connected to the second connection electrode through the first connection electrode”. It is believed that the underlined portion should refer to “the through hole” or “the functional hole” or “first connection structure”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Lee et al., US 8,384,507.
Regarding claim 1, Lee (figures 4-5) teaches a functional substrate 402 having a central region (where 406 is) and a peripheral region (where the 404’s are) surrounding the central region (where 406 is) (figure 5 makes this clear with 502 in central region & all of the 504’s in the peripheral region); wherein the functional substrate 402 comprises:
a dielectric (column 5, lines 49-53) substrate 402 comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the dielectric substrate 402; wherein the dielectric substrate 402 has a functional hole 410 and an anchor hole 408 each at least penetrating through the first surface, the functional hole 410 is in the central region (where 406 is), and the anchor hole 408 is in the peripheral region (where the 404’s are); and
a first connection structure 410 and a second connection structure 408, wherein the first connection structure 410 is in the functional hole 410, the second connection structure 408 is in the anchor hole 408, and the first connection structure 410 and the second connection structure 408 are made of a same material (column 4, lines 58-59).
With respect to claim 4, Lee (figure 4) teaches the functional hole 410 is a through hole 410 penetrating through the second surface; the functional substrate 402 further comprises a first connection electrode 422/420 on the first surface and a second connection electrode 426 on the second surface; the first connection electrode 422/420 is connected to the second connection electrode 426 through the first connection electrode 410 (sic through hole or function hole or first connection structure as noted in the above 35 USC 112 rejection) to form a coil structure of a first inductor 406.
As to claim 9, Lee (figure 4) teaches the anchor hole 408 is a through hole 408 penetrating through the second surface; the functional substrate 402 further comprises a fifth connection electrode 424 on the first surface and a sixth connection electrode (unlabeled electrode at bottom of 408) on the second surface; and the fifth connection electrode 424 is connected to the sixth connection electrode (unlabeled electrode at bottom of 408) through the second connection structure 408 to form a coil structure of a second inductor 404.
In re claim 14, Lee (figure 4) teaches the dielectric substrate 402 comprises glass (column 6, lines 51-52).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 8,384,507, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furusawa et al., US 2013/0215586.
Concerning claim 2, Lee fails to teach an orthographic projection of the functional hole on a plane where the first surface is located has a diameter of D; and for each of the anchor hole, a distance between a center of an orthographic projection of the anchor hole on the plane where the first surface is located and a center of an orthographic projection of any one of the functional hole on the plane where the first surface is located is not less than 2D.
Furusawa teaches an orthographic projection of the functional hole 36 on a plane where the first surface is located has a diameter of D; and for each of the anchor hole 36, a distance between a center of an orthographic projection of the anchor hole 36 on the plane where the first surface is located and a center of an orthographic projection of any one of the functional hole 36 on the plane where the first surface is located is not less than 2D (paragraph 0035). Furusawa (paragraph 0035) teaches the surface diameter of the penetrating holes 36 is from 60-150 um, and the minimum diameter is from 30-80 um. These ranges overlap with the claimed “not less than 2D”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
invention to have selected the portion of diameter range that corresponds to the claimed range. Therefore, overlapping ranges are a prima facie evidence of obviousness (In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974)).
Pertaining to claim 3, though Lee fails to teach for each of the anchor hole, a minimum distance from an edge of the anchor hole to an edge of the dielectric substrate is not less than 50 um, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the minimum distance through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach the similar inventions or various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 3/4/26