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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 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)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Susukida et al. (US 2002/0030728).
Regarding claim 1, Susukida et al teaches an insulating substrate (figs.10,11, 14-16), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (42 figs.10,11,14-16), including a main surface (paragraphs 0128,0144); and
a planarization layer (41 figs.10,11,14-16), covering the main surface,
wherein the planarization layer (41) is a ceramic layer (paragraphs 0127,0137).
Regarding claim 2, Susukida et al further teaches wherein a recess (recess formed on 42 figs.10,11,14-16) is formed on the main surface, and the recess is filled with the planarization layer (41).
Regarding claim 3, Susukida et al further teaches wherein the ceramic layer is a sintered ceramic powder layer formed by sintering a ceramic powder having a particle size less than a size of the recess (figs.10,11,14-16; paragraphs 0042,0127,0137). Note: the limitation “…sintered … formed by sintering a ceramic powder…” is manufacturing method step limitations, and thus the above limitation is not given patentable weight in this structure claim.
Regarding claim 6, Susukida et al further teaches an electrical wiring substrate (figs.10,11,14-16), comprising: the insulating substrate of claim 1; and a wiring layer (23), disposed on the planarization layer (41).
Regarding claim 7, Susukida et al further teaches a thermal print head (fig.13), comprising: the insulating substrate (insulating substrate in figs.10,11,14-16) of claim 1;
a glaze (24), disposed on the ceramic substrate (42);
a wiring layer (23), disposed on the glaze and the planarization layer; and
a heat resistor (22), placed on the glaze and connected to the wiring layer (figs.10,11,14-16).
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.
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susukida et al. (US 2002/0030728).
Regarding claim 4, Susukida et al substantially teaches the claimed invention including ceramic powder particles contained in the recess (figs.10,11,14-16; paragraphs 0042,0127,0137).
Susukida et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the particle size of the ceramic powder is less than one-third of the size of the recess.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use optimum particle size of the ceramic particle for a given recess for instance based on desired physical features in the substrate such as strength, size, etc., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Susukida et al substantially teaches the claimed invention including recess and ceramic powder particles having predetermined sizes (figs.10,11,14-16; paragraphs 0042,0127,0137).
Susukida et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the size of the recess is greater than 10 μm, and the particle size of the ceramic powder is less than 2 μm.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use optimum recess and particle size for instance based on desired physical features in the substrate such as strength, size, etc., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights