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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026.
Applicant’s traversal regarding the species requirement has been fully considered but is respectfully not persuasive and moot.
First, all claims 1-16 are generic and examined on the merits making the issue moot.
Second, regarding the sheer volume of Figures and Embodiments totaling over 76 Figures spanning 94 pages of Figures, the number of iterations presented presents a burden in and of itself. Applicant’s arguments that particular embodiments within these Figures represent mere small iterations however small iterations building upon one another indeed amount to distinct embodiments.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claims 1
The claim limitation “wherein each pair serves as an arcing electrode pair and different ones of the arcing electrode pairs are configured to are discharge at different voltages in response to an EOS signal.” is improperly narrative. What a device “serves” as fails to add identifiable structure to the apparatus claim and instead serves to narratively define the invention over the prior art instead of defining the invention by its structure.
Since no “electrode pair” is claimed it is unclear what structure is intended to be added to the apparatus claim.
The claims will be examined as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are allowed.
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if re-written to overcome the 112 rejections above, as provided below:
1. An electrical overstress (EOS) monitor or protection device comprising:
a substrate having a horizontal main surface; and
a plurality of pairs of conductive layers over the horizontal main substrate, different ones of the pairs separated in a vertical direction by different vertical distances,
wherein the plurality of pairs of conductive layers comprise:
a plurality of first conductive layers formed at different vertical levels above the horizontal main surface, each of the first conductive layers extending in a lateral direction substantially parallel to the horizontal main surface; and
a second conductive layer formed between the first conductive layers and the horizontal main surface and extending in the lateral direction, wherein the different ones of an arcing electrode pairs are formed by different ones of the first conductive layers paired with the second conductive layer;
wherein each pair serves as an arcing electrode pair and different ones of the arcing electrode pairs are configured to are discharge at different voltages in response to an EOS signal.
2. Cancelled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights