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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group II in the reply filed on 01/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Anodic Aluminum Oxide Film-Based Interposer for Electrical Connection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, US 2014/0085829 in view of Jeong, KR 101465361 B1.
Yamashita shows the invention substantially as claimed including an anodic aluminum oxide film-based interposer for electrical connection, the interposer comprising:
A body 12 made of an anodic aluminum oxide film having a plurality of through-holes 13;
An electrically conducive material provided in each of the through-holes, where the electrically conductive material can comprise copper (see, for example, paragraph 0040).
Yamashita does not expressly disclose a bonding material provided in each of the through-holes and provided at least a part of on and under the electrically conductive material. Jeong discloses an interposer substrate comprising a bonding material (241 and 243) provided in each of the through-holes and provided at least a part of on and under the electrically conductive material (see region 242) (see abstract and last Figure) . In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Yamashita so as to comprise the bonding material of Jeong because in such a way the electrode of adjacent substrates can be stably connected.
With respect to dependent claim 5, note that in Yamashita the electrically conductive material can comprise copper (again, see paragraph 0040).
Concerning dependent claim 6, note when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation the bonding material can comprise a first bonding material provided under the electrically conductive material; and a second bonding material provided on the electrically conductive material, since applicant does not distinguish between the electrically conductive material or the first and second bonding materials.
As to dependent claim 7, note that when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation the bonding material and the electrically conductive material can be considered to have the same height as a height of the body since the bonding material and electrically conductive material interface can be at the height of the body particularly since the bonding material and electrically conductive material are not distinguished from each other. However, this notwithstanding, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, US 2014/0085829 in view of Jeong, KR 101465361 B1 as applied to claims 4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Bickford et al., U.S. Patent 4,862,322.
Yamashita and Jeong are applied as above and additionally Yamashita discloses where the electrically conductive material can comprise copper (see paragraph 0040) but does not expressly disclose wherein the bonding material is one of the claimed materials. Bickford et al. discloses the use of a bonding material such as gold, for example, that can bond contacts (94,96) between an integrated circuit and circuit board (78,80) (see, for example, col. 9-lines 31-57 and fig. 4). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Yamashita modified by Jeong so as to utilize a bonding material such as gold to bond the contacts in the device of Yamashita modified by Jeong because Bickford shows that bonding materials such as gold are suitable for bonding electrically conductive (contact) materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0118794 discloses an interposer substrate and a packaging structure (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
February 16, 2026