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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0068255 A1 (Takemoto).
Takemoto discloses, referring primarily to figures 1-4, a wiring substrate (1), comprising: a substrate (2); conductor wiring (3) provided on the substrate; and an insulator (4) positioned in at least a part of a periphery of the conductor wiring, wherein the insulator contains a magnetic material (5) [claim 1], wherein the conductor wiring includes a bottom surface positioned on the substrate side, a top surface positioned on a side opposite to the substrate, and a pair of lateral surfaces positioned between the bottom surface and the top surface, and the insulator covers at least one surface among the bottom surface, the top surface, and the pair of lateral surfaces of the conductor wiring (figure 1) [claim 2], wherein the insulator covers only the top surface and the pair of lateral surfaces among the bottom surface, the top surface, and the pair of lateral surfaces of the conductor wiring (figure 1) [claim 13],wherein a covering thickness of the insulator is 0.1 to 100 µm ([0039]) [claim 15],wherein the magnetic material is a metal oxide or an amorphous metal ([0046]) [claim 16], wherein a relative magnetic permeability of the insulator is 2 to 1000 ([0016], [0047]) [claim 17], wherein a relative permittivity of the insulator is 1 to 30 ([0016], [0047]) [claim 18].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0022518 A1 (Mizutani) in view of US 2019/0390061 A1 (Cheng).
Mizutani discloses, referring primarily to figure 11, a wiring substrate, comprising: a substrate (23); conductor wiring (24) provided on the substrate; and an insulator (21) positioned in at least a part of a periphery of the conductor wiring, wherein the insulator contains a low-loss material ([0066]). Mizutani does not specifically state that the low-loss material is a magnetic material [claim 1]. However, it is well known in the art to form a low-loss dielectric layer of magnetic material as evidenced by Cheng ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use magnetic material for the low-loss dielectric in the invention of Mizutani as is known in the art and evidenced by Cheng. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a material that is easy to tailor to a desired loss tangent (Cheng [0031]).
Additionally, the modified invention of Mizutani teaches that the low-loss magnetic material may be applied in any way to obtain the desired acceptable transmission loss (Mizutani [0097]-[0099]). Therefore, any of the forms of the low-loss magnetic layer as claimed in claims 2-14 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as merely requiring a change of form. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve the desired transmission loss profile [claims 2-14]. Moreover, a mere change in form has be held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 M-F.
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 at (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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847