This Office Action is in response to the papers filed on June 20, 2024.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 18 and 19 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 2’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 3’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and is thus similarly indefinite.
Claim 6’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 8’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” (line 4 and lines 7-8) lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 9’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” (line 2) lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 9’s “the opening of the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” (line 6) lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 12’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 13’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and is thus similarly indefinite.
Claim 16’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 18’s “the opening in the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” (line 4 and lines 7-8) lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claim 19’s “the opening of the plurality of inorganic insulation layers” (line 2 and line 6) lacks clear antecedent basis and should instead read “the opening penetrating at least one of the inorganic insulation layers.”
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 20 are allowed. The prior art does not disclose or suggest independent claims 1 and 10 as a whole.
Registered practitioners can telephone the examiner at (571) 272-1843. Any voicemail message left for the examiner should include the registration number of the registered practitioner calling. The examiner’s supervisor is Wael Fahmy, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1705.
/MARK V PRENTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
