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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 5 – 6, 9, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanei et al. (US 5825632 A) in view of Kitazawa et al. (JP 2005101368 A, “Kitazawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanei discloses (Fig. 16, and 17) a multilayer structure (17) having a main surface (8), the multilayer structure comprising: a first conductor (10) extending in parallel with the main surface; a second conductor (see annotated figure below) extending in parallel with the main surface and disposed at a different position from the first conductor with respect to a thickness direction of the multilayer structure (see annotated figure below); and a third conductor (9) having a shape of which a longest direction thereof is any direction other than the direction perpendicular to the main surface, wherein within a range higher than a lower end of the third conductor and lower than an upper end of the third conductor in the thickness direction of the multilayer structure, at least a part of the first conductor is included and at least a part of the second conductor is included (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanei is silent on a shape of which a longest direction thereof is any direction other than the direction perpendicular to the main surface.
However, Kitazawa discloses (Fig. 1a - c) a shape (For the third conductor 5) of which a longest direction thereof is any direction other than the direction perpendicular to the main surface (See Fig. 1b).
Tanei and Kitazawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of circuit board. Therefore, making the shape of the conductor 9 of Tanei a shape of which a longest direction thereof is any direction other than the direction perpendicular to the main surface would involve the mere addition or replacement of a well-known feature, and would not achieve any new effect, and thus could be addressed easily by a person skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1, wherein Tanei further discloses within the range higher than the lower end of the third conductor and lower than the upper end of the third conductor in the thickness direction of the multilayer structure, the first conductor is entirely included and the second conductor is entirely included (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1, wherein Tanei further discloses the multilayer structure is a multilayer substrate (see Col. 9, lines: 63 - 64).
Regarding claim 6, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1, wherein Tanei further discloses the multilayer structure is an electronic component (see Claim 1, and Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 9, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1, wherein Tanei further discloses the third conductor is not exposed to an outer surface of the multilayer structure (See annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 14, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 2, wherein Tanei further discloses the multilayer structure is a multilayer substrate (see Col. 9, lines: 63 - 64).
Regarding claim 17, Tanei in view of Kitazawa discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 2, wherein Tanei further discloses the multilayer structure is an electronic component (see Claim 1, and Fig. 17).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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