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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paller et al. (US 2023/0309236).
Regarding claim 1, Paller discloses an apparatus (Fig. 6), comprising:
a substrate (100) including a hole (160); and
a vent structure (150) embedded within an internal insulating layer (core layer) of the substrate (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0125) (¶ 0069: the inlay 150 is embedded in core layer of stack 101, and core layer is insulating material) and configured to allow air flow through the hole (¶ 0125: gas-permeable),
wherein:
the substrate comprises a multi-layer substrate (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0125), and
the vent structure includes an air-permeable membrane (110) (¶ 0125) configured to prevent liquid penetration (¶ 0112).
Regarding claim 4, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the vent structure further includes conductive layers (120 or 130 and 121 or 131) adhered to two surfaces of the air-permeable membrane (¶ 0016, 0126), excluding a region within the hole (Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶ 0125, 0089: component carrier 100 is a printed circuit board).
Regarding claim 7, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the multi-layer substrate includes a first group of layers and a second group of layers formed, respectively, on a first surface and a second surface of the vent structure (Fig. 6 shows that 100 includes a group of layers above 160 and a group of layers below 160).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Banter et al. (US 2010/0270102).
Regarding claim 2, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air-permeable membrane comprises an
Paller is not relied upon to disclose that the fluoropolymer layer is open-pore.
In a similar field of endeavor, Banter discloses open-pore fluoropolymer layer for a similar type of membrane (¶ 0015, 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute the fluoropolymer layer of Paller with an open-pore fluoropolymer layer, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one material for an air-permeable membrane for another to obtain predictable results of an air-permeable membrane. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Ely et al. (US 2015/0273524).
Regarding claim 3, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the air-permeable membrane comprises a layer made of
Paller is not relied upon to disclose that the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ely discloses expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) for a similar type of membrane (¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute the PTFE with ePTFE, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one material for a air-permeable membrane for another to obtain predictable results of an air-permeable membrane. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Wikipedia1 (https://web.archive.org/web/20211215202500/https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Flexible_electronics).
Regarding claim 6, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a
Paller is not relied upon to disclose that the substrate comprises a flexible substrate, including a flexible PCB.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wikipedia1 discloses configuring a PCB to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB, thus allowing the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PCB of Paller to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB of Paller, the motivation being to allow the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (Wikipedia1 - first paragraph).
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Wikipedia1, and as evidenced by Wikipedia2 (https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114333/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder_mask). See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Regarding claim 8, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first group of layers includes a conductive layer (¶ 0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers) adhered (either directly or via other layers therebetween) to a protective layer (¶ 0099: solder resist layer),
Paller is not relied upon to disclose wherein the protective layer comprises a coverlay.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wikipedia1 discloses configuring a PCB to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB, thus allowing the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PCB of Paller to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB of Paller, the motivation being to allow the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (Wikipedia1 - first paragraph).
Wikipedia2 discloses, and thus provides extrinsic evidence that the solder stop layer on a flexible board is also called a coverlay (3rd paragraph). Therefore, as evidenced by Wikipedia2, the protective layer (which is a solder resist layer on a flexible board) comprises a coverlay. See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Regarding claim 10, Paller-Wikipedia1 discloses the apparatus of claim 8, and Paller discloses wherein the internal insulating layer comprises a polyimide layer surrounding the vent structure (¶ 0070: the polyimide is arranged between the inlay 150 (which is the vent structure) and stack 101, and as seen in Fig. 6, the areas between 150 and 101 surround 150), wherein the polyimide layer includes an annular clearance region surrounding the hole in which no conductive layer of the first group of layers is present (¶ 0070: the polyimide is arranged between the inlay 150 and stack 101, and as seen in Fig. 6, the areas between 150 and 101 do not include the hole 160, which means the polyimide will not be arranged at the hole 160, thus resulting in an annular clearance region surround the hole).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Cook et al. (US 2013/0315780).
Regarding claim 9, Paller discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the second group of layers includes conductive layers (0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers), a polyimide layer (¶ 0070: polyimide adhesive material), and a solder resist layer (¶ 0099).
Paller is not relied upon to disclose that the solder resist layer is a liquid photo-imageable (LPE) layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cook discloses using a liquid photo-imageable solder mask (i.e. solder resist layer) (¶ 0296).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: use liquid photo-imageable (LPE) solder mask for the solder resist layer of Paller, the motivation being to use a material that meets IPC SM 840 Qualification and Performance Standards for permanent solder mask (Cook - ¶ 0296).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Cook in view of Mondry et al. (US 11212605).
Regarding claim 11, Paller-Cook discloses the apparatus of claim 9,
Additionally, Paller discloses a transducer (145) is a sensor or microphone (¶ 0071).
While the embodiments of Figs. 4 and 5 of Paller depict where to incorporate the transducer (145), the embodiment of Fig. 6 which is relied upon for this rejection does not depict where to incorporate the transducer (145).
Thus, Paller-Cook is not relied upon to disclose wherein the hole is configured to allow the air flow to reach a sensor attached to the substrate, or a sound wave to reach a microphone attached to the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mondry discloses that a transducer (410) can be attached to a PCB/substrate (470) at the end of a hole of the PCB/substrate (Fig. 5), wherein the hole (445) is configured to allow the air flow to reach a sensor (410) attached to the substrate (470), or a sound wave to reach a microphone (410) attached to the substrate (Fig. 5 and detx29-30, col. 8, lines 23-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: attach the transducer (145) of Paller to the PCB of Paller in the manner taught by Mondry (i.e. at the end of the hole 160 of Paller on the bottom of 100 in Fig. 6),
which would result in: wherein the hole (160 of Paller) is configured to allow the air flow to reach a sensor (145) attached to the substrate (100), or a sound wave to reach a microphone (145) attached to the substrate (100),
the motivation being to incorporate the transducer (145) of Paller into the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Paller for the situation where the transducer is not located within the PCB (Paller - Fig. 6) (Mondry - Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 12, 14-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry.
Regarding claim 12, Paller discloses an electronic device comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (100) including a hole (160) (¶ 0125, 0089: component carrier 100 is a printed circuit board); and
a membrane structure (150) embedded within an internal insulating layer (core layer) of the PCB (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0125) (¶ 0069: the inlay 150 is embedded in core layer of stack 101, and core layer is insulating material) and configured to facilitate air flow through the hole (¶ 0125: gas-permeable)
wherein the membrane structure includes a membrane (110) configured to prevent liquids
While the embodiments of Figs. 4 and 5 of Paller depict where to incorporate a transducer (145), the embodiment of Fig. 6 which is relied upon for this rejection does not depict where to incorporate a transducer (145).
Thus, Paller is not relied upon to disclose a membrane structure embedded within the PCB and configured to facilitate air flow through the hole to reach a transducer attached to the PCB,
wherein the membrane structure includes a membrane configured to prevent liquids from reaching the transducer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mondry discloses that a transducer (410) can be attached to a PCB (470) at the end of a hole of the PCB (Fig. 5), where: a membrane structure (480)
wherein the membrane structure (480) includes a membrane (412) configured to prevent liquids from reaching the transducer (Fig. 5 and detx30, col. 8, lines 33-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: attach the transducer (145) of Paller to the PCB of Paller in the manner taught by Mondry (i.e. at the end of the hole 160 of Paller on the bottom of 100 in Fig. 6),
which would result in: air flow through the hole of Paller reaches the transducer, and liquids are prevented from reaching the transducer,
the motivation being to incorporate the transducer (145) of Paller into the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Paller for the situation where the transducer is not located within the PCB (Paller - Fig. 6) (Mondry - Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 12, and Paller discloses wherein the membrane structure further includes conductive layers (120 or 130 and 121 or 131) adhered to two surfaces of the membrane (¶ 0016, 0126), excluding a region within the hole (Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 12, and Paller discloses wherein the PCB includes a first group of layers, and a second group of layers formed, respectively, on a first surface, and a second surface of the membrane, excluding a region within the hole (Fig. 6 shows that 100 includes a group of layers above 160 and a group of layers below 160).
Regarding claim 18, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 12, and Paller discloses wherein the transducer comprises one of a gas sensor, a pressure sensor, or a microphone (¶ 0071).
The teachings of Mondry relied upon above are combinable with Paller-Mondry for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 12 rejection.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry in view of Ely.
Regarding claim 13, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 12, and Paller discloses wherein the membrane structure comprises membrane made of
Paller-Mondry is not relied upon to disclose that the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ely discloses expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) for a similar type of membrane (¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute the PTFE with ePTFE, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one material for an air-permeable membrane for another to obtain predictable results of an air-permeable membrane. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry in view of Wikipedia1, and as evidenced by Wikipedia2. See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Regarding claim 16, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 15, and Paller discloses wherein the first group of layers includes a conductive layer (¶ 0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers) adhered (either directly or via other layers therebetween) to a protective layer (¶ 0099: solder resist layer),
Paller-Mondry is not relied upon to disclose wherein the protective layer comprises a coverlay.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wikipedia1 discloses configuring a PCB to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB, thus allowing the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PCB of Paller to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB of Paller, the motivation being to allow the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (Wikipedia1 - first paragraph).
Wikipedia2 discloses, and thus provides extrinsic evidence that the solder stop layer on a flexible board is also called a coverlay (3rd paragraph). Therefore, as evidenced by Wikipedia2, the protective layer (which is a solder resist layer on a flexible board) comprises a coverlay. See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry in view of Cook.
Regarding claim 17, Paller-Mondry discloses the electronic device of claim 15, and Paller discloses wherein the second group of layers includes conductive layers (0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers), a polyimide layer (¶ 0070: polyimide adhesive material), and a solder resist layer (¶ 0099).
Paller-Mondry is not relied upon to disclose that the solder resist layer is a liquid photo-imageable (LPE) layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cook discloses using a liquid photo-imageable solder mask (i.e. solder resist layer) (¶ 0296).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: use liquid photo-imageable (LPE) solder mask for the solder resist layer of Paller, the motivation being to use a material that meets IPC SM 840 Qualification and Performance Standards for permanent solder mask (Cook - ¶ 0296).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry in view of Wikipedia1.
Regarding claim 19, Paller discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (100) including a vent structure (150) embedded in an internal insulating layer (core layer) of the substrate (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0125) (¶ 0069: the inlay 150 is embedded in core layer of stack 101, and core layer is insulating material); and
wherein:
the substrate is a multi-layer
the vent structure includes a membrane (110) configured to allow air flow and prevent liquid penetration (¶ 0112)
While the embodiments of Figs. 4 and 5 of Paller depict where to incorporate a transducer (145), the embodiment of Fig. 6 which is relied upon for this rejection does not depict where to incorporate a transducer (145).
Thus, Paller is not relied upon to disclose a transducer attached to the substrate,
wherein:
the vent structure includes a membrane configured to allow air flow and prevent liquid penetration to reach the transducer through a hole of the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mondry discloses that a transducer (410) can be attached to a PCB/substrate (470) at the end of a hole of the PCB/substrate (Fig. 5), where: a membrane (412) configured to allow air flow and prevent liquid penetration to reach the transducer through a hole of the substrate (Fig. 5 and detx29-30, col. 8, lines 23-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: attach the transducer (145) of Paller to the PCB/substrate of Paller in the manner taught by Mondry (i.e. at the end of the hole 160 of Paller on the bottom of 100 in Fig. 6),
which would result in: a transducer attached to the substrate; and the membrane (110 of Paller) configured to allow air flow and prevent liquid penetration to reach the transducer through a hole of the substrate,
the motivation being to incorporate the transducer (145) of Paller into the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Paller for the situation where the transducer is not located within the PCB (Paller - Fig. 6) (Mondry - Fig. 5).
Paller-Mondry is not relied upon to disclose the substrate is a multi-layer flexible substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wikipedia1 discloses configuring a PCB to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB, thus allowing the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PCB of Paller to be a flexible PCB using identical components as the PCB of Paller,
which would result in: the substrate is a multi-layer flexible substrate,
the motivation being to allow the board to conform to a desired shape or to flex during its use (Wikipedia1 - first paragraph).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paller in view of Mondry in view of Wikipedia1 in view of Ely in view of Cook, and as evidenced by Wikipedia2. See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Regarding claim 20, Paller-Mondry-Wikipedia1 discloses the apparatus of claim 19, and Paller discloses wherein:
the membrane comprises an air-permeable and water-proof membrane (¶ 0112) made of
the vent structure further includes conductive layers (120 or 130 and 121 or 131) covering two surfaces of the membrane (¶ 0016, 0126), excluding a region within the hole (Figs. 1 and 6),
the multi-layer flexible substrate includes a first group of layers, and a second group of layers formed, respectively, on a first surface and a second surface of the vent structure (Fig. 6 shows that 100 includes a group of layers above 160 and a group of layers below 160),
the first group of layers includes a conductive layer (¶ 0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers) adhered (either directly or via other layers therebetween) to a protective layer (¶ 0099: solder resist layer),
the second group of layers includes conductive layers (0122: stack 101 of 100 includes conductive layers), a polyimide layer (¶ 0070: polyimide adhesive material), and a solder resist layer (¶ 0099).
Paller-Mondry-Wikipedia1 is not relied upon to disclose that the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ely discloses expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) for a similar type of membrane (¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute the PTFE with ePTFE, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one material for an air-permeable membrane for another to obtain predictable results of an air-permeable membrane. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Paller-Mondry-Wikipedia1-Ely is not relied upon to disclose that the solder resist layer is a liquid photo-imageable (LPE) layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cook discloses using a liquid photo-imageable solder mask (i.e. solder resist layer) (¶ 0296).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: use liquid photo-imageable (LPE) solder mask for the solder resist layer of Paller, the motivation being to use a material that meets IPC SM 840 Qualification and Performance Standards for permanent solder mask (Cook - ¶ 0296).
Paller-Mondry-Wikipedia1-Ely does not explicitly disclose wherein the protective layer is a coverlay. Wikipedia2 discloses, and thus provides extrinsic evidence that the solder stop layer on a flexible board is also called a coverlay (3rd paragraph). Therefore, as evidenced by Wikipedia2, the protective layer (which is a solder resist layer on a flexible board) comprises a coverlay. See MPEP § 2131.01.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 7-8) that:
“The Office Action relies on Paller Fig. 6 and Paller ¶0125 for the statements that the vent structure is "embedded within the substrate" and "configured to allow air flow through the hole," and cites Paller ¶0112 for the membrane being "gas-permeable" and "configured to prevent liquid penetration." The Action also cites Paller ¶0126 for conductive layers adhered to the membrane "excluding a region within the hole (Figs. 1 and 6)." None of these passages states, suggests, or implies that the vent structure is embedded within an internal insulating layer of the substrate, as expressly recited by amended claim 1.
The only embedding language cited by the Office Action is the general disclosure "embedded within the substrate" (Paller ¶0125). The Action does not identify any passage stating that the vent structure is embedded "within an internal insulating layer," nor does it cite any passage identifying a specific insulating layer within the multilayer substrate that surrounds the vent structure. The other cited disclosures-"gas-permeable" and "configured to prevent liquid penetration" (Paller ¶0112), and "excluding a region within the hole" (Paller ¶0126)-also do not disclose embedding in an internal insulating layer.”
In response, the examiner submits that Paller ¶ 0069 teaches that the inlay 150 (which is the vent structure) is embedded in a core layer of stack 101 (which is the substrate), and the core layer is insulating material. This is expanded on further in the examiner’s response in item (b) below.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 8) that:
“During the interview, the Examiner suggested Paller ¶69 may teach this limitation. However, Paller ¶69 discloses only that "the inlay is embedded at least partially in the core layer structure," and further states that "the core layer structure may comprise an electrically insulating material and/or an electrically conductive material (e.g., a copper or aluminum core).' The passage does not describe a vent structure, does not disclose embedding the vent structure within an internal insulating layer, and does not identify any insulating layer that surrounds the vent structure as recited by the claim. Moreover, because Paller ¶69 expressly allows the "core layer structure" to be electrically conductive, it cannot, as a matter of fact, be the "internal insulating layer" recited in amended claim 1. And to the extent ¶69 discusses placing an inlay "into a cavity," a cavity is not an insulating layer at all-it is a void, not a dielectric material. Accordingly, Paller ¶69 does not teach the amended limitation.”
In response to “The passage does not describe a vent structure”, the examiner submits that the inlay 150 is the vent structure.
In response to “does not disclose embedding the vent structure within an internal insulating layer”, the examiner submits that Paller ¶ 0069 teaches that the inlay 150 (which is the vent structure) is embedded in a central (i.e. internal) core layer of stack 101 (which is the substrate), and the central core layer is insulating material thus making it an internal insulating layer.
In response to “does not identify any insulating layer that surrounds the vent structure as recited by the claim”, the examiner submits that Paller ¶ 0069 teaches that the core layer of stack 101 (which is the substrate) is insulating material (and thus is the insulating layer), Paller ¶ 0069 further teaches that the inlay 150 (which is the vent structure) is embedded (at least partially) in the core layer, and note that if inlay 150 is at the least partially embedded in the core layer (for example, in the manner shown in Fig. 5), this implies that at the most it is completely embedded in the core layer (as shown in Fig. 6). The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “embed” as “to surround closely”, which matches what is shown in Fig. 6 which shows inlay/vent structure 150 surrounded by a material.
In response to “because Paller ¶69 expressly allows the "core layer structure" to be electrically conductive, it cannot, as a matter of fact, be the "internal insulating layer" recited in amended claim 1”, the examiner submits that Paller ¶ 0069 teaches “The core layer structure may comprise an electrically insulating material (typical PCB material) and/or an electrically conductive material (e.g., a copper or aluminum core)” (emphasis added by bold/underline). The “or” indicates an embodiment in which the core layer structure is an electrically insulating material.
In response to “a cavity is not an insulating layer at all-it is a void, not a dielectric material”, the examiner submits that looking at the instant application, vent structure 120 is embedded in a cavity of substrate 110 (see Fig. 1), the cavity being a void in substrate 110 that vent structure 120 fits into. Similarly, looking at Paller, vent structure/inlay 150 is embedded in a cavity of substrate 101/100 (see Fig. 6), the cavity being a void in substrate 101/100 that vent structure/inlay 150 fits into. Thus, this is how the examiner is interpreting the “cavity” mentioned in Paller ¶ 0069.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm EST.
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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights