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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Feb. 24, 2026 has been entered.
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 14, 20 and 26 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the multiple first via segments” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the multiple first via segments” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the multiple second via segments” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 14, 15, 20, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Glogowski (US 2020/0313304 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Glogowski discloses an RF structure (abstr., 0001, 0002), comprising multiple layers to be assembled and bonded together with positional alignment (0064, 0065), each respective layer of the multiple layers including a first via segment of a first particular shape, and dimension in the respective layer at a first location in the respective layer – it is implied that a first via segment has a dimension – alignment bore of each layer is interpreted as a first via segment (0064), such that when the multiple layers are assembled with positional alignment the multiple first via segments align to form a first via (0057, 0064, Figs. 1 and 4), and a first analogous pin – alignment pin - configured to be inserted into the first via, the first analogous pin configured to have the first particular shape and dimension based on each of the first via segments – implied, such that when the first analogous pin is inserted into the first via, the first analogous pin assists in causing the multiple layers to be assembled with positional alignment (0064, Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding the first via including a predetermined pattern to assist in inspecting the at least positional alignment across at least some of the multiple layers, the first via of Glogowski comprises a pattern of two vias 30 (0064, Figs. 1-4), thus, it would be expected that the structure of Glogowski is capable to perform as intended, that is, the first via of Glogowski having a predetermined pattern is capable to assist in inspecting the positional alignment across at least some of the multiple layers.
Regarding claim 15, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. Glogowski discloses the structure includes a waveguide (0013, 0028, 0060).
With respect to claim 20, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. Glogowski discloses each of the multiple first via segments includes an identical shape and dimension, and the first via includes a consistent cross-section across its length (0059, Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 24, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. Glogowski discloses the first analogous pin being configured for removal after the bonding of the multiple layers (0064).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski, in view of Waterman (US 4695766).
With respect to claim 17, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the structure including an interaction structure. Waterman discloses an interaction structure – a traveling wave tube – combined with a waveguide (abstr., col. 1, lines 6-10, 38-45, col. 3, lines 51-59, col. 5, lines 43-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interaction structure such as a traveling wave tube in the structure of Glogowski as it is known in the art of RF structures to include in them a traveling waveguide tube.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski (US 2020/0313304 A1), in view of Borchard et al. (US 11640893 B1) (“Borchard”).
With respect to claim 19, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. Borchard discloses an RF structure wherein layers are aligned using precision alignment pins in precision alignment holes, the first particular shape being a square or rectangular shape, thus, Borchard discloses the first particular shape of each respective layer including a polygonal cross-section (Fig. 1).
(col. 1, lines 62-67, col. 2, lines 1-13, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first particular shape of Glogowski including a square or a rectangular cross-section as such cross-sections are known in the art of via segments used in RF structures. Changes in shape are within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2114.04).
With respect to claim 26, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. Glogowski discloses that each respective layer of the multiple layers to be assembled and bonded together with positional alignment includes alignment openings 32a, 32b, and elements 30, elements 30 being interpreted as corresponding to the first via structures, as discussed above (0057, 0064, 0065, Figs. 1, 2, 4). Glogowski is silent with respect to a second via segment of a second particular shape and dimension in the respective layer at a second location in the respective layer, such that when the multiple layers are assembled with positional and rotational alignment the multiple second via segments align to form a second via, and with respect to a second analogous pin as recited in the claim.
Borchard discloses an RF structure wherein layers are aligned using precision alignment pins in precision alignment holes, the first particular shape being a square or rectangular shape (col. 1, lines 62-67, col. 2, lines 1-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a second via segment having the second particular shape in the structure of Glogowski including a square or a rectangular cross-section as such cross-sections are known in the art of via segments used in RF structures. Changes in shape are within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2114.04). Regarding the multiple layers being assembled with positional and rotational alignment, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that cross-section shapes of via segments such as a square or a rectangular shape provide for both positional and rotational alignment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the structure of Glogowski a second via segment of a second particular shape and dimension in the respective layer at a second location to provide for rotational alignment to form a second via.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski, in view of Stein (US 5148135).
With respect to claim 21, Glogowski teaches the structure of claim 14. It is implied that the first analogous pin includes a top surface, a bottom surface and a length. The reference is silent regarding the length of the first analogous pin being identical to a length of the via, and the first analogous pin being configured such that when inserted into the first via, each of the top surface and bottom surface is flush with a surface of a layer of the multiple layers. Stein discloses an RF structure wherein alignment pins have a length identical to a length of the via – a via interpreted as having a length which is a combined length of alignment holes 43, 41, 28 – the first analogous pin having the top surface and the bottom surface, the top surface and the bottom surface being flush with a surface of the layers of the structure (abstr., col. 3, lines 32-40, Figs. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structure of Glogowski such that the length of the first analogous pin is identical to a length of the via, the first analogous pin being configured such that when inserted into the first via each of the top surface and bottom surface is flush with a surface of a layer of the multiple layers, as such configuration of an analogous pin and a first via is known in the art of RF structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Marshall et al (US 3999263) (“Marshall”).
With respect to claim 14, Marshall discloses an electron beam structure (abstr.), comprising multiple layers to be assembled and bonded together with positional alignment (abstr., col. 1, lines 62-68, col. 2, lines 1-14), each respective layer of multiple layers including a first via segment of a first particular shape and dimension at a first location in the respective layer – it is implied that a first via segment has a dimension, such that when the first via segments of the multiple layers are assembled with positional alignment the multiple first via segments align to form a first via (col. 2, lines 44-68, Figs. 1), and a first analogous pin – alignment pin - configured to be inserted into the first via, the first analogous pin configured to have the first particular shape and dimension based on each of the first via segments – implied, such that when the first analogous pin is inserted into the first via, the first analogous pin assists in causing the multiple layers to be assembled with positional alignment (col. 2, lines 53-68, col. 4, lines 54-59, Fig. 1). Regarding the first via including a predetermined pattern to assist in inspecting the at least positional alignment across at least some of the multiple layers, the first via of Marshall comprises a pattern of two vias 3-1, 5-1, and 3-2, 5-2 (col. 3, lines 54-59, Fig. 1), thus, it would be expected that the structure of Marshall is capable to perform as intended, that is, the first via of Marshall having a predetermined pattern is capable to assist in inspecting the positional alignment across some of the multiple layers.
Regarding claim 16, Marshall teaches the structure of claim 14. Marshall teaches a structure wherein the structure includes an electron beam opening (abstr., col. 4, lines 6-16, col. 5, lines 20-24).
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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall, in view of Borchard et al. (US 11640893 B1) (“Borchard”).
As to claim 28, Marshall teaches the structure of claim 14. Marshall is silent with respect to the first analogous pin assisting in causing the multiple layers to be assembled with rotational alignment. Borchard discloses a structure that accelerates an electron beam wherein layers are aligned using precision alignment pins in precision alignment holes, the pins having a square or a rectangular shape (col. 1, lines 62-67, col. 2, lines 1-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first via having the shape suitable for an alignment pin having a square or rectangular shape, to assist in multiple layers to be assembled with rotational alignment, as changes in size and shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed above.
The Examiner notes, claims 20 and 27 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, and if amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued that Glogowski and Borchard fail to teach the limitation of “the first via including a predetermined pattern to assist in inspecting the at least positional alignment across at least some of the multiple layers.” The Examiner notes in the present Office Action the single reference Glogowski has been applied in the rejection, Glogowski disclosing the first via including a predetermined pattern, as discussed above.
The Examiner confirms that in the last Office Action claims 14 and 16 were rejected under 35 USC 103; the stated rejection under 35 USC 102 was an inadvertent mistake.
The Applicant argued that Marshall fails to teach the first via including a predetermined pattern as recited in claim 14. The Examiner notes in the present rejection single reference Marshall was applied to reject claim 14, Marshall disclosing the first via including a predetermined pattern, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights