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 without traverse of Species IA, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Thus, Claims9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 1B-C and I-V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-8 as below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble recites: “A method, comprising:” w/out defining exactly what the method is about which made scope of the claims unclear, it is suggested further define the preamble base on Applicant(s) intended method (e.g., method for making interconnection universal substrate, the method comprising steps of:), for clarity of the method inventive claim formats.
“wherein in the step of” (claims 3-5, line 1) should be updated to: --“wherein in the” --, to reflect changes as suggested in the preamble of base claim 1.
Similar to claim 3 above applied to claims 4-5, respectively, for clarity of the method claim inventive feature.
It is unclear as to exactly what being referring to as “effecting” step as occurred in claim 8, 2 and 6, please be more specific as to what being considered as effecting in term of active method limitation which directed to the claimed method. appears to be “defining “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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.
Whether or not the recites “a first electronic device” (claim 8, line 3) and that “a second electronic device” (claim 8, line 4) is a part of the method since no forming method related to such outside entity’s devices.
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.
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) 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al (US 6245175) in view of Munro (US 3852878)
Hotta et al discloses the broadly claimed method, comprising:
providing a preform 15 having a predetermined profile (see Figs. 6, 10 and discussed in col. 9, lines 42+);
wrapping a plurality of conductors 13 about an outer surface of the preform 15 (see Figs. 9a, 10, discussed in col. 9, lines 18-21);
forming a batch product 14 that includes the plurality of conductors and the nonconductive matrix; and wafering at least one section of the batch product to form at least one universal substrate, wherein the plurality of conductors of the at least one universal substrate defines a first connection surface, a second connection surface opposite to the first connection surface, and a plurality of conductive pathways defined between the first connection surface and the second connection surface (see Fig. 9 in conjunction w/ Fig. 10 and discussed in light of col. 9, line 39).
The Hotta et al, however is in silent regarding the step of “injecting a nonconductive matrix between conductors of the plurality of conductors, wherein the nonconductive matrix permeates between interstitial spaces of the plurality of conductors to isolate some conductors of the plurality of conductors from one another”. The Munro discloses regarding to the above in term forming (includes by injection or vacuum molding techniques) a nonconductive matrix between conductors of the plurality of conductors 31, 32, wherein the nonconductive matrix permeates between interstitial spaces 58, 59, 60 of the plurality of conductors 31, 32 to isolate some conductors of the plurality of conductors from one another (see abstract, and discussed in col. 4, lines 23-27, col. 5, lines 28-32in conjunction with Fig. 6, respectively). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Munro’s teaching as noted above onto invention of Hotta et al for various known benefit that include facilitate the fabrication process by using the known and available techniques and cost saving.
As applied to claim 2, refers to Fig. 11a-11b of the Hotta et al for the interconnect of the two devices with base claim 1 formed structure 20, respectively.
As applied to claim 3, refers to Figs. 9a and 10 of the Hotta et al for limitation of claim 3.
Limitation of claim 4 is/are also satisfied by the Hotta et al (see Fig. 9a and in conjunction w/ discussed in col. 4 lines 27-38).
Potential Allowable Claims
Claim 5-7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights