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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 16, 2024, and September 5, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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 1-2, 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A)
Regarding Claim 1 – Keiji discloses circuit substrate comprising: a substrate body made of a ceramic (Fig 3A; 11; Keiji [0001] states “an insulating substrate… made of a ceramic material such as alumina”); wiring located on the substrate body (Figs 3B, 1a; 2/12/13; Keiji [0001] states “a pair of wiring conductors 2 and 2 are formed” and “a pair of wiring conductors 12.12 are printed on an insulating substrate 11”); a resistor interposed in the wiring (Fig 3e; 3; Keiji [0001] states “a resistance paste… is printed and fired between the pair of wiring conductors… Then, the resistor 3 is formed”) and having a higher electrical resistance than the wiring (Fig 3B; Keiji [0001] states “The wiring conductors 2 and 2 are formed by printing and baking a conductor paste containing… silver-palladium (Ag / Pd) powder”), wherein the wiring comprises a first electrode comprising a first body portion and a plurality of first comb-tooth portions each extending from the first body portion in a direction intersecting a direction in which the first body portion extends (Fig 1a; 12; Keiji [0001] states “the pair of wiring conductors 121.12 is formed by combining the F-shaped wiring conductors… in a comb shape” wherein Keiji shows the first electrode having a longitudinal base and multiple protrusions extending from the base in a transverse direction), and a second electrode comprising a second body portion and a plurality of second comb-tooth portions each extending from the second body portion in a direction intersecting a direction in which the second body portion extends and has a comb-tooth shape located to mesh with a comb-tooth shape of the first electrode with an interval (Fig 1a; 13; Keiji [0001] states “13… conductors inserted with a gap 15 between the conductors 12 of the other party”), and the resistor comprises a resistive element located in contact with both the first body portion of the first electrode and the second body portion of the second electrode (Fig 1e; 14; Keiji [0001] states “a resistor 14 is formed between the upper surfaces of the conductors 12.12 and 13” wherein Keiji shows the resistive element 14 formed on the upper surfaces of the base regions of both electrodes 12 and 13, such that the resistive element is in contact with both body portions).
Regarding Claim 2 – Keiji teaches the circuit substrate according to claim 1, wherein the resistor comprises one resistive element (Fig 1e; 14; Keiji [0001] states “a resistor 14 is formed between the upper surfaces of the conductors 12.12 and 13”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Keiji teaches the circuit substrate according to claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of first comb-tooth portions and all of the plurality of second comb-tooth portions are covered with the resistive element (Figs 1a/1e; Keiji [0001] states “the pair of wiring… is formed by combining the F-shaped wiring conductors… in a comb shape” and “a resistor 14 is formed between the upper surfaces of the conductors 12.12 and 13”).
Regarding Claim 14 – Keiji teaches an electronic device comprising: the circuit substrate according to claim 1; and an electronic component located on the substrate body and connected to the wiring (Figs 3A-3E; Keiji [0001] states “This hybrid integrated circuit is generally formed by soldering a chip-type passive element or active element… to a thick film substrate formed by printing a conductive material and a resistance material on an insulating substrate”).
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 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Noboru et al. (JP S63164201 A)
Regarding Claim 3 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, having intermeshed comb conductors separated by a gap (Fig 1a; Keiji [0001] states “conductors inserted with a gap 15 between the conductors 12 of the other party”). Keiji fails to disclose all of an interval between the first body portion and the second comb-tooth portion, an interval between the second body portion and the first comb-tooth portion, and an interval between the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are substantially equal to each other.
Noboru teaches all of an interval between the first body portion and the second comb-tooth portion, an interval between the second body portion and the first comb-tooth portion, and an interval between the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are substantially equal to each other (Noboru [0001] states “keeps a constant interval by forming a constant width interval (3) therebetween” the constant width interval (3) is formed between the opposed, interposed electrode portions in the intermeshed region, thereby providing substantially equal spacing between the opposing body-to-tooth and tooth-to-tooth portions).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with all of an interval between the first body portion and the second comb-tooth portion, an interval between the second body portion and the first comb-tooth portion, and an interval between the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are substantially equal to each other as taught by Noboru in order to maintain a constant width spacing between opposing electrode portions throughout the intermeshed region.
Regarding Claim 6 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, having intermeshed comb conductors separated by a gap (Fig 1a; Keiji [0001] states “conductors inserted with a gap 15 between the conductors 12 of the other party”). Keiji fails to disclose the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are longer in an extending direction than in a width direction.
Noboru teaches the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are longer in an extending direction than in a width direction (Noboru describes the comb-like electrode part (including the comb-tooth portions) with “length 1200” and a “line width… 200” providing explicit dimensions showing length greater than width).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion are longer in an extending direction than in a width direction as taught by Noboru in order to implement the expressly disclosed long and narrow comb like electrode geometry (e.g., length 1200 vs line width 200) for the intermeshed electrode portions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Masahide et al. (JP S63208201 A)
Regarding Claim 5 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a tip portion of the first comb-tooth portion and a tip portion of the second comb-tooth portion each have a round shape.
Masahide teaches a tip portion of the first comb-tooth portion and a tip portion of the second comb-tooth portion each have a round shape (Fig 3; Masahide [0001] states “the electrode end portion (3) was formed in a circular arc shape”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with a tip portion of the first comb-tooth portion and a tip portion of the second comb-tooth portion each have a round shape as taught by Masahide in order to implement the expressly stated rounded electrode-end geometry.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Miyazawa (US 20030183884 A1)
Regarding Claim 7 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein among the plurality of first comb-tooth portions, a first comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another first comb-tooth portion.
Miyazawa teaches among the plurality of first comb-tooth portions, a first comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another first comb-tooth portion (Fig 8A; 64/66/68; Miyazawa [0062] states “The first electrode portion 64a has electrode fingers 66, and the second electrode portions 64b has electrode fingers 68. The electrode fingers 66 are wider than the electrode fingers 68” Miyazawa further characterizes 64a and 65a as the cutting off portions at the interface between the first and second portions).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with among the plurality of first comb-tooth portions, a first comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another first comb-tooth portion as taught by Miyazawa to because Miyazawa [0063] states “the first electrode portions… have a comparative wide finger width and a comparatively wide gap… [and] enable finer stepwise capacitance adjustment”.
Regarding Claim 8 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein among the plurality of second comb-tooth portions, a second comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another second comb-tooth portion.
Miyazawa teaches among the plurality of second comb-tooth portions, a second comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another second comb-tooth portion (Fig 8A; 65/67/69; Miyazawa [0062] states “The first electrode portion 65a has electrode fingers 67, and the second electrode portions 65b has electrode fingers 69. The electrode fingers 67 are wider than the electrode fingers 69”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with among the plurality of second comb-tooth portions, a second comb-tooth portion overlapping an end portion of the resistive element has a wider width than another second comb-tooth portion as taught by Miyazawa because Miyazawa [0063] states “enable finer stepwise capacitance adjustment”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Hotelling et al. (US 8274492 B2)
Regarding Claim 9 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the first body portion, and the second comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the second body portion.
Hotelling teaches the first comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the first body portion, and the second comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the second body portion (Fig Hotelling [Detailed description] states “The comb structure may have… diagonal teeth”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with the first comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the first body portion, and the second comb-tooth portion extends along a direction oblique to the second body portion as taught by Hotelling because Hotelling expressly states the invention can be “compatible with any of these comb design shapes”.
Regarding Claim 10 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion each have a zigzag shape.
Hotelling teaches the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion each have a zigzag shape (Hotelling [Detailed description] states “The comb structure may have… teeth having other shapes (such as zig-zag shaped teeth, for example)”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with the first comb-tooth portion and the second comb-tooth portion each have a zigzag shape as taught by Hotelling because Hotelling expressly states the invention can be “compatible with any of these comb design shapes”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Shinji et al. (JP 2000208895 A)
Regarding Claim 11 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the resistive element contains lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6).
Shinji teaches the resistive element contains lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) (Fig 2B; Shinji [0028] states “it is considered optimal to fire the LaB6 based material”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with the resistive element contains lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) because Shinji [0028] states “The resistor material is preferably a material that can be fired in a neutral or reducing atmosphere in order to prevent oxidation of W and Mo formed on the surface layer”.
Regarding Claim 12 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a glass layer configured to cover the wiring and the resistive element.
Shinji teaches a glass layer configured to cover the wiring and the resistive element (Figs 2C/3d; Shinji [0007] states “a protective glass (overcoat glass) J6 covering the thick film resistor J5 is formed”, additionally Shinji [0029] states “in order to protect the resistor 4, a protective glass (overcoat glass) is formed so as to cover the surface of the resistor 4 and the first surface wiring layer 3a connected thereto”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with a glass layer configured to cover the wiring and the resistive element as taught by Shinji in order to protect the resistor/wiring layer with an overcoat glass.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji (JP S61154104 A) in view of Itou (US 10319501 B2)
Regarding Claim 13 – Keiji discloses the circuit substrate according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the resistive element comprises a groove, and the circuit substrate further comprises a resin layer configured to cover at least the groove.
Itou teaches the resistive element comprises a groove (Fig 1A; 10A; Itou [Description of embodiments] states “trimming groove 10A” in connection with resistive element 10), and the circuit substrate further comprises a resin layer configured to cover at least the groove (Fig 1A; 17; Ito states “epoxy resin or silicon resin is applied… and then the resin is dried to form protective film 17”, Itou further states “so as to cover… the side surfaces of resistive element 10”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the circuit substrate of Keiji with the resistive element comprises a groove, and the circuit substrate further comprises a resin layer configured to cover at least the groove as taught by Itou because Itou expressly teaches trimming grooves in the resistive element and forming a resin protective film over the resistive element surfaces protecting the trimmed structure and associated surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30.
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, 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.
/ADITYA SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847