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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 07-21-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining all pending claims would not impose a serious burden; and that the Requirement does not sufficiently explain how the asserted alternative process would produce the claimed composite structure as a whole. This is not found persuasive. As mentioned in the Requirement, the two groups are classified in different areas, and the search for one group does not require a search in the other. As stated in MPEP § 806.05(f), if the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, then the groups related as process of making and product made are distinct. As shown in the Requirement, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, such as using adhesive for bonding, instead of thermal bonding. Such alternate process would produce the claimed composite structure as a whole.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 15, lines 3-5, “the electrical paths” should be changed to --the electrically conductive paths--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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.
Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (9215801) in view of Song et al. (2011/0057991).
Takahashi et al. discloses a composite structure comprising a layer of a ceramic-based material (10) that includes electrically conductive paths (20) formed of an electrically conductive metal and extending through the ceramic-based material and solid portions positioned between the conductive paths (re-claim 12). Takahashi et al. also discloses that the conductive metal includes at least one of copper, tungsten, or molybdenum (col. 3 lines 5-14) (re-claim 13).
Takahashi et al. does not disclose the composite comprising a first layer of an electrical insulator material positioned over the layer of ceramic-based material and bonded to first ends of the solid portions; and a second layer of the electrical insulator material positioned under the layer of ceramic-based material and bonded to second ends of the solid portions (re-claim 12).
Song et al. discloses a composite structure comprising a layer of ceramic-based material (20a), a first layer of an electrical insulator material (10a) positioned over and bonded to upper side of the ceramic-based material, and a second layer of the electrical insulator material (30a) positioned under and bonded to lower side of the ceramic-based material (re-claim 12). Song et al. also discloses that the electrical insulator material includes at least one of glass or silicon ([0041]) (re-claim 14); and the ceramic-based material includes a LTCC material ([0041]) (re-claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the first layer (10a) and the second layer (20a) of silicon as taught by Song et al. respectively over and under the ceramic-based material (10) of Takahashi et al. to protect the conductive paths from the surrounding environment.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use LTCC for the ceramic-based material (10) of Takahashi et al. since it is taught by Song et al. that the LTCC material has little difference in thermal expansion coefficient in comparison with the upper and lower silicon layer. This may allow for stable bonding at a bonding interface ([0043]).
It is noted that since the modified composite structure of Takahashi et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the CTE of the ceramic-based layer (LTCC) is greater than that of the electrical insulator (silicon) and less than that of the conductive metal (copper, tungsten, and/or molybdenum) (re-claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
