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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-24 in the reply filed on 01/02/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the interstices" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a1 as being anticipated by Takayama (US 2011/0221076).
Regarding claims 14-16; Takayama teaches an apparatus comprising a first, second substrate and a joint between the first and second substrate (fig. 4, #3,4,5; para. 0035), the joint comprising a plurality of retention mediums to form a stack between the substrates, (mesh; fig. 4, #8; para. 0035), and filler material extending between the first and second substrate through the stack (fig. 4, #2; para. 0041).
Regarding claim 24, Takayama teaches that the bonding material is silver (para. 0038)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 2011/0221076) in view of Homer (US 2018/0361518) and Fanucci (US 2003/0173459).
Takayama teaches a product as described above in claim 14, but fails to teach one or more further stacks comprising a respective plurality of retention mediums between the first and second substrate, wherein the number of retention mediums arranged in the stacks varies.
Regarding claims 17-18; Homer, however, teaches a solder embedded mesh between substrates (abstract, fig. 1) wherein the angle between the substrates are oblique wherein thickness of the bonding layer varies (fig. 1).
Fanucci teaches a layered product (abstract) wherein the number of layers are varied for the purpose of achieving a differential thickness (para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide that when the angle between the substrates are oblique the thickness of the bonding layer varies such that the number of layers (retention mediums) are varied for the purpose of achieving a differential thickness in an application of solder embedded with mesh bonding layer as taught by Homer and Fanucci, respectively.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide multiple stacks as duplication of parts is obvious. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B).
Regarding claim 19, as the thickness of the layers are varied, it would have been obvious to vary the length monotonically of the retention mediums in the stack to conform to the space requirements (angle between the substrates).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 2011/0221076) in view of Wada (US 2001/0055694).
Takayama teaches a product as described above in claim 14, but fails to teach that the size of the interstices is less than or equal to 112 micrometers (half the threshold).
Wada, however, teaches a composite high strength porous mesh layer (abstract; para. 0050) wherein the hole size is 1-100 micrometers for the purpose of providing a high strength porous metal material (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mesh of Takayama having a hole size is 1-100 micrometers for the purpose of providing a high strength porous mesh material as taught by Wada.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 2011/0221076) in view of Homer (US 2018/0361518).
Takayama teaches a product as described above in claim 14, but fails to teach that the thickness of the retention medium is in a range of 25-200 micrometers.
Homer, however, Homer, however, teaches a solder embedded mesh between substrates (abstract) wherein the mesh has a thickness of 0.075-0.75 mm (para. 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the solder embedded mesh between substrates (abstract) wherein the mesh has a thickness of 0.075-0.75 mm in Takayama in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Homer.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 2011/0221076) in view of Bruck (US 2017/0239757).
Takayama teaches a product as described above in claim 14, but fails to teach that the retention medium is comprised of stainless steel, inter alia.
Bruck, however, teaches a mesh for a joint material between two substrates (abstract) wherein the mesh comprises stainless steel for the purpose of providing a material for moderate temperatures (para. 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mesh of Takayama comprises stainless steel in order to provide a material for moderate temperatures as taught by Bruck.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 2011/0221076) in view of Slade (US 2020/0381154) and Slade2 (US 2019/0252104).
Takayama teaches a product as described above in claim 14, but fails to teach each substrate is a limb of a toroidal field coil in a plasma confinement vessel.
Slade2, however, teaches a joint stack between two superconductor coils (limbs) in a toroid (fig. 6). Additionally, Slade teaches toroidal field coil can be applied in a tokamak plasma chamber (para. 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus (joint stack) wherein the substrate is a coil (limb) of a toroidal field coil in Takayama in order to provide a configuration for a known application of a joint stack as taught by Slade and Slade2, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights