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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on January 27th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 8, 13 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-20 as follows.
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)(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.
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Fuji (US 2019/0080849, hereinafter as Fuji ‘849).
Regarding Claim 1, Fuji ‘849 teaches an integrated passive device (IPD) comprising:
a conductive substrate (Fig. 11, (101); [0004]) having a front side and a back side;
a plurality of layers including a front dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the front side of the conductive substrate, a back dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the back side of the conductive substrate, a front conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the front dielectric layer, and a back conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the back dielectric layer, the plurality of layers defining a front isolation trench revealing the front side of the conductive substrate and a back isolation trench revealing the back side of the conductive substrate (see Fig. 11);
a first metal contact (106; [0004]) electrically connected to the conductive substrate (101) by way of a first blind via defined from a front outer surface of the IPD to the front side of the conductive substrate (101), the first blind via being positioned within the front isolation trench; and
a second metal contact (108; [0004]) electrically isolated from the first metal contact (106) and electrically connected to the front and back conductive polymer layers (103), the second metal contact (108) being electrically connected to the back conductive polymer layer (103) by way of a through via defined from the front outer surface of the IPD to a back outer surface of the IPD, the through via being positioned within the front isolation trench and the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Fuji ‘849 teaches an integrated passive device (IPD) comprising:
a conductive substrate (Fig. 11, (101); [0004]) having a front side and a back side;
a plurality of layers including a front dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the front side of the conductive substrate (101), a back dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the back side of the conductive substrate (101), a front conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the front dielectric layer, and a back conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the back dielectric layer, the plurality of layers defining a front isolation trench revealing the front side of the conductive substrate (101) and a back isolation trench revealing the back side of the conductive substrate (see Fig. 11);
a first metal contact (106; [0004]) electrically connected to the conductive substrate (101)
a second metal contact (108; [0004]) electrically isolated from the first metal contact (106) and electrically connected to the front and back conductive polymer layers (103), the second metal contact (108) being electrically connected to the back conductive polymer layer (103) by way of a through via defined from the front outer surface of the IPD to a back outer surface of the IPD, the through via being positioned within the front isolation trench and the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Fuji ‘849 teaches an integrated passive device (IPD) comprising:
a conductive substrate (Fig. 11, (101); [0004]) having a front side and a back side;
a plurality of layers including a front dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the front side of the conductive substrate, a back dielectric layer (102; [0004]) on the back side of the conductive substrate, a front conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the front dielectric layer, and a back conductive polymer layer (103; [0004]) on the back dielectric layer, the plurality of layers defining a front isolation trench revealing the front side of the conductive substrate and a back isolation trench revealing the back side of the conductive substrate (see Fig. 11);
a first metal contact (106; [0004]) electrically connected to the conductive substrate (101) by way of a first blind via defined from a front outer surface of the IPD to the front side of the conductive substrate (101), the first blind via being positioned within the front isolation trench; and
a second metal contact (108; [0004]) electrically isolated from the first metal contact (106) and electrically connected to the front and back conductive polymer layers (103).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 (Fuji ‘849)
Regarding Claim 2, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch (see Fig. 11) on opposite borders of the IPD, the first blind via being positioned within the first stretch of the front isolation trench and the through via being positioned within the second stretch of the front isolation trench.
Regarding Claim 3, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Fuji ‘849 teaches a third metal contact (107; [0004]) electrically connected to the conductive substrate by way of a second blind via defined from a back outer surface of the IPD to the back side of the conductive substrate, the second blind via being positioned within the back isolation trench.
Regarding Claim 5, Fuji ‘849 teaches the back isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch on opposite borders of the IPD respectively aligned with the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench, the second blind via (106) being positioned within the first stretch of the back isolation trench and the through via being positioned within the second stretch of the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Fuji ‘849 teaches the back isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claims 7, 12 and 19, Fuji ‘849 teaches the plurality of layers further includes a front metallization layer (104; [0004]) arranged to promote electrical conductivity between the front conductive polymer layer and the second metal contact and a back metallization layer arranged to promote electrical conductivity between the back conductive polymer layer and the second metal contact.
The applicant’s claim 7 does not distinguish over Fuji ‘849 reference regardless of the functions allegedly performed by the claimed device, because only the device per se is relevant, not the recited function of the front/back metallization layer in order to promote electrical conductivity between the front/back conductive polymer layer and the second metal contact. In reference to the claim language referring to the function of the front/back metallization layer, intended use and other types of functional language (such as to promote electrical conductivity between the front/back conductive polymer layer and the second metal contact) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch (see Fig. 11) on opposite borders of the IPD, and the back isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch on opposite borders of the IPD respectively aligned with the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench, the through via being positioned within the second stretch of the front isolation trench and the second stretch of the back isolation trench.
Regarding Claim 11, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench, and the back isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 15, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch (see Fig. 11) on opposite borders of the IPD, the first blind via being positioned within the first stretch of the front isolation trench.
Regarding Claim 17, Fuji ‘849 teaches the back isolation trench includes a first stretch and a second stretch on opposite borders of the IPD respectively aligned with the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench, the second blind via (106) being positioned within the first stretch of the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 18, Fuji ‘849 teaches the front isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the front isolation trench (see Fig. 11) and the back isolation trench includes a third stretch and a fourth stretch on opposite borders of the IPD connecting the first and second stretches of the back isolation trench (see Fig. 11).
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.
Claims 8, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji ‘849 as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding Claims 8, 13 and 20, Fig. 11 of Fuji ‘849 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the plurality of layers further includes a front carbonaceous layer on the front conductive polymer layer and a back carbonaceous layer on the back conductive polymer layer, the front metallization layer being on the front carbonaceous layer and the back metallization layer being on the back carbonaceous layer”.
Fig. 7B of Fuji ‘849 teaches a front carbonaceous layer (20a; [0080]) on the front conductive polymer layer (5a; [0079]) and a back carbonaceous layer on the back conductive polymer layer (5b; [0079]), the front metallization layer (19a; [0081]) being on the front carbonaceous layer (20a) and the back metallization layer (19b; [0079]) being on the back carbonaceous layer (20b; [0080]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fig. 11 of Fuji ‘849 by having a front carbonaceous layer on the front conductive polymer layer and a back carbonaceous layer on the back conductive polymer layer, the front metallization layer being on the front carbonaceous layer and the back metallization layer being on the back carbonaceous layer for the purpose of promoting the adhesion (see para. [0080]) as suggested by Fuji ‘849.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with regards to claims 1-20, filed on January 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that Fujii '849 fails to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 1 including "the first blind via being positioned within the front isolation trench" and "the through via being positioned within the front isolation trench and the back isolation trench." Likewise, Fujii '849 fails to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 9 including "the through via being positioned within the front isolation trench and the back isolation trench" and fails to disclose the combination of features recited in claim 14 including "the first blind via being positioned within the front isolation trench."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments, because Fig. 11 of Fujii '849 (as belonging to "Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2008-78301; [see para. [0004]) discloses the limitations: “the first blind via being positioned within the front isolation trench” and “the through via being positioned within the front isolation trench and the back isolation trench” (see Fig. 11) as recited in base claim 1. Fig. 4h and para. [0032] of Kurihana (JP 2008-78301) discloses the first blind via (the conductor (18)) being positioned within the front isolation trench (via hole (33))” and the through via (the conductors (17 and 19)) being positioned within the front isolation trench (32) and the back isolation trench (32). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 14 are sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 8, 13, and 20 (considering the additional teachings of Fujii '849 as applied) which depend from base claims 1, 9 and 14 are also sustained due to the same reasons above.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 (Fujii '849)
PNG
media_image3.png
380
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Kurihana (JP 2008-078301)
PNG
media_image4.png
578
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3-4 of Kurihana (JP 2008-078301)
PNG
media_image5.png
456
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains rejections.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893