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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0205148).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a package substrate, comprising:
a core (10), wherein the core is a single material layer with a thickness between a first surface (11) and a second surface (12) opposite from the first surface [Figs. 2A-2B and paragraph 0183];
a first pad (17) directly on the first surface [Fig. 2B];
a second pad (18) directly on the second surface, wherein the second pad (18) is entirely outside a footprint of the first pad (17) [Fig. 2B]; and
a via (16) through the thickness of the core (10), wherein the via (16) comprises a single continuous structure that extends from the first pad (17) to the second pad (18) and that connects the first pad (17) directly to the second pad (18) [Fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses wherein the via (16) is an angled via (41) with a non- orthogonal angle relative to the first surface (11) of the core (10) [Fig. 2B].
PNG
media_image1.png
266
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses wherein the via (16) comprises a first portion (41) and a second portion (41a), wherein the first portion (41) is angled with a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first surface (11) of the core (10) [Fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses wherein the first portion (41) contacts the first pad (17), and wherein the second portion (41a) contacts the second pad (18) [Fig. 2B].
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses wherein the core is a glass core [paragraph 0183].
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 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamins et al. (US 7804175) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0205148).
Regarding claim 1, Kamins discloses a package substrate, comprising:
a core (700), wherein the core is a single material layer with a thickness between a first surface (702) and a second surface (704) opposite from the first surface [Fig. 7 and col. 3, lines 40-44];
a via (720) through the thickness of the core (700), wherein the via (720) comprises a single continuous structure that extends from connect point (A) to connect point (B) [Fig. 7].
However, Kamins does not disclose the first pad and a second pad.
Yamamoto teaches:
a first pad (17) directly on the first surface [Fig. 2B];
a second pad (18) directly on the second surface, wherein the second pad (18) is entirely outside a footprint of the first pad (17) [Fig. 2B]; and
a via (16) that extends from the first pad (17) to the second pad (18) and that connects the first pad (17) directly to the second pad (18) [Fig. 2B].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Kamins by including first and second pads, so that the via connects the first pad directly to the second pad as taught by Yamamoto because the pads help to mount devices on both sides of a substrate [paragraph 0412]. In addition, the motivation for doing so is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kamins discloses wherein the via (720/1020) comprises a first portion (724 or ,in the alternative, 722/1022) and a second portion (722 or ,in the alternative, 724/1024, respectively) [Figs. 6-7 and 10], wherein the first portion (724 or ,in the alternative, 722/1022) is angled with a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first surface (702/1022) of the core (700/1000) [col. 8, lines 62-65; and col. 7, lines 58-62. Also, see col. 9, lines 62-63: “substantially perpendicular”].
Regarding claim 5, Kamis discloses wherein the second portion (722) contacts the first connect point (A), and wherein the first portion (724) contacts the second connect point (B) [Fig. 7]. And, Yamamoto, as stated above, teaches the first and second pads (17/18).
Regarding claim 6, Kamis discloses wherein the second portion (724) is angled with a non-orthogonal angle relative to the first surface of the core [Fig. 7].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0205148) in view of Chase et al. (US 2013/0341772).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto does not teach wherein the via is a via plane.
Chase teaches via plane (320/420/526/712) [Figs. 3-5 and 7 and paragraph 0024].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Yamamoto by including an elongated via structure as taught by Chase because it helps to reduce noise in adjacent components [Abstract]. In addition, the motivation for doing so is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0205148) in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0051907).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto does not teach recessed pads.
Kang teaches wherein the first pad, and the second pad are recessed (embedded pads 323) into the core (302) [Fig. 3 and paragraphs 0040-0041].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Yamamoto by including first and second recessed pads as taught by Kang because it helps to provide higher density interconnects for the substrate [paragraph 0045]. In addition, the motivation for doing so is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1727. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/Jose R Diaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights