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
Acknowledgment is made wherein this application is claimed continuation of the PCT Application PCT/KR2022/011599, being filed on August 05, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application filed on March 25, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed February 23,2024, January 16, 2025, October 15, 2025, and March 09, 2026 have been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Applicants must continue to submit prior art references throughout the patent application process. A supplemental IDS must be submitted if prior art is discovered through a foreign patent application or an International Patent Search, or a related application before a prosecution closes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species C encompassing claims 1-9, 14-17, and 20 in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 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)).
Claim 17 is further withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter (see figures 14A-14B).
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.
Claims 1-9, 14-16 and 20 are 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.
Rejection of claim 1, the limitation “the interposer includes a first part defining an outer portion, and a second part defining an inner portion facing the interior space and surrounded by the first part, wherein the first part is configured to at least partially and electrically shield the second part and the interior space from an outside of the interposer, wherein the interposer includes signal vias configured for transmitting a signal between the first board and the second board and ground vias connected to a ground, wherein the number of the ground vias included in the first part is greater than the number of signal vias included in the second part, and wherein the number of signal vias in the second part is greater than the number of the ground vias in the second part” are indefinite.
Based on claim 1, claim 1 mentions that an interposer nothing more than vias (ground vias and signal vias) without structure holding them such as a body. However, based on specification, an interposer has a body with conductive ground vias, and conductive signal vias; and first and second circuit board electrically connected to the conductive signal vias for transmitting a signal between the first board and the second board and first and second circuit board electrically connected to the conductive ground vias connected to a ground of the first circuit board and a ground of the second circuit board.
However, none of the underlying essential structure defined in the claim.
Furthermore, use of configured to is improper. Ground vias present in first part wherein the first part is already
And it requires to have conductive signal vias and conductive ground via connected to the first and the second circuit boards as mentioned above in order to wherein the interposer includes signal vias configured for transmitting a signal between the first board and the second board and ground vias connected to a ground,
“a ground” lacks antecedent basis. And, “the number of the ground vias included in the first part” and “the number of the ground vias included in the second part” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Rejection of claims 2-9, 14-16, and 20, claims 2-9, 14-16, and 20 are dependent on claim1, therefore, these claims are rejected by the same reason applied to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Rejection of claims 2, 3-9, and 15, the limitation “the first part includes a first via, a second via spaced apart from the first via in a direction parallel to the first board “ is indefinite or unclear.
It appears from specification that a first via, a second via are part of the conductive ground vias mentioned in claim 1. However, it is not clear in the claim 2, that a first via, a second via are referred to what the conductive ground vias or the conductive signal vias. Please clarify as a first via, a second via as a conductive ground via and a second conductive ground via of the conductive ground vias OR a first via, a second via as a conductive signal via and a second conductive signal via of the conductive signal vias, whichever apply.
A term “a direction parallel to the first board” is not clear because this can defined as a direction parallel to a length or a width or a height of the first board, and each direction is different in term of board.
Similar reason for rejection apply to claim 4, which has a third via and a fourth via, and furthermore “a first direction parallel to the first board”. Also see 6, and 15. Similarly, for the terms a widthwise direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the interposer. Note that interposer extend in all directions, it does not define specific direction.
Similarly in other dependent claims the claims 3-9 and 15 are indefinite or unclear because wherein each of the vias in all the claims are not properly defined based on claim 2. Wherein no clear relationship established between each of the vias as part of the ground vias or the signal vias mentioned in the claim 1 or each via should consider not part of any of the ground vias or the signal vias. Clarification is required.
Note that election of claims 2-9 and 15 is proper and not, which can not be decide for elected species based on the current claims; however, after proper amendment, any claims that does not read on the elected species would be further withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 3, limitation “the first pads are formed on a first surface of the interposer” is indefinite or unclear.
The first pads, insulation layer, and substrate from of interposer and cumulatively but not clearly defining boundary or surface. It is appears to be the first pads are formed on a first surface of the body of the interposer; not formed on a first surface of the interposer.
Appropriate action is required.
Rejection of claim 16, the limitation “wherein the number of the ground vias included in the first part is less than the number of the ground vias included in the second part, which occupies a larger area than the first part” is indefinite or unclear.
If in claim 1, wherein the number of the ground vias (for example G1) included in the first part is greater than the number of signal vias (for example S2) included in the second part, and wherein the number of signal vias (S2) in the second part is greater than the number of the ground vias (for example G2) in the second part. If G1>S2, and S2 >G2; that means G1>G2; wherein in claim 16, G2>G1.
Therefore, claim 16 conflicts with claim 1.
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-AlA) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all rejections set forth 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.
(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.
Claims 1, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US20200093040, herein referred to as Yun).
Rejection of claim 1, Yun (figures 3-7) discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing (120,180); a first board and a second board disposed in the housing and disposed to face each other (190 and 150); and
an interposer extending to at least partially surround an interior space between at least the first board and the second board and electrically connecting the first board and the second board (an interposer 200 between 190 and 150),
wherein the interposer includes a first part defining an outer portion (a part of outer vias lane as a first part ), and a second part defining an inner portion facing the interior space and surrounded by the first part (a part of inner vias lane as a second part), wherein the first part is configured to at least partially and electrically shield the second part and the interior space from an outside of the interposer (see figures wherein outer vias lane having claimed intended use or capacity, see specification) , wherein the interposer includes signal vias (211) configured for transmitting a signal between the first board and the second board and ground vias (212, see specification) connected to a ground,
wherein the number of the ground vias included in the first part is greater than the number of signal vias included in the second part, and wherein the number of signal vias in the second part is greater than the number of the ground vias in the second part (a part of inner vias lane having the number of signal vias in the second part is greater than the number of the ground vias in the second part).
Rejection of claim 14, Yun discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the ground vias of the first part are spaced apart from each other by a first distance, and wherein the ground vias of the second part are spaced apart from each other by a second distance greater than or equal to the first distance (see a distance between two ground vias in the first part same as a distance between two ground vias in the second part in figure 7 of Yun).
Rejection of claim 15, Yun discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein when the interposer is viewed in a direction perpendicular to a length of the first board, an area occupied by the ground vias included in the first part is smaller than an area occupied by the ground vias included in the second part. (see Yun have an area occupied by the vias included in the first part is smaller than an area occupied by the vias included in the second part; note that that size and shape of first part and second part is not limited in along the edge of the interposer ; therefor, any outer via lane part which an area occupied by the vias included in the first part is smaller than an area occupied by the vias included in the inner via lane part in Yun).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Chen et al. (US20160240481, herein referred to as Chen).
Rejection of claim 20, Yun discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the interposer includes an insulating cover layer defining a surface of the interposer, and a conductive layer disposed under the cover layer, and wherein the conductive layer includes a conductive pattern extending to correspond to the first part, and connected to the ground vias included in the first part.
Chen discloses wherein the interposer includes an insulating cover layer defining a surface of the interposer, and a conductive layer disposed under the cover layer, and wherein the conductive layer includes a conductive pattern extending to correspond to the first part, and connected to the ground vias included in the first part (see a conductor layer 12 covered by insulating layer 15 and a conductor layer 12 has conductive patterns 121-24 connected to respective vias) .
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of the Yun to have conductor layer with insulating layer arrangement as taught by Chen so that conductor layer is insulate and protect the cover layer as well as exposed portion of conductor layer which electrically connects via or electronic components or devices from one side to other side of the interposer.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case, all of which disclose various interposers.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday. 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 on (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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights