DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/511,333, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the parent application does not provide support for the limitation “creating a spot face on a top of the multilayer structure after selectively depositing a seed layer over a sidewall of the through-hole, wherein the spot face is vertically aligned with the through-hole” as claimed in claim 13. The effective filing date for the present application is, therefore, October 26, 2021.
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.
Claims 13-16 and 19-24 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.
In claim 13, line 9, the limitation “the inner side” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, line 17, the limitation “the non-net terminating land portion” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 13 recites “non-net termination land” at line 10.
In claim 13, line 20, the limitation “the predetermined net terminating land” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 13 recites “net termination land” at line 11.
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 13-15 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pen (US2016/0278208A1) in view of Buchwalter (US2007/0246252A1).
Pen discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed by Pen are crossed out):
Claim 13. A method for forming stub-less plated through-hole in a PWB, the method comprising:
forming a multilayer structure (see Fig. 7) comprising a plurality of conductive layers (108) interleaved with a plurality of insulating layers (104, 106) and at least one secondary material layer (118) disposed over at least one of the plurality of conductive layers inside the multilayer structure;
drilling (see Fig. 8) a through-hole (110) through the multilayer structure;
selectively removing (see Fig. 9) the inner side of the secondary material layer to create a void (115) within the through-hole to form a non-net termination land segment (between the two 118) of the through-hole and a segment of the through hole including a predetermined net termination land (108);
selectively depositing a seed layer (e.g., forming the electroless plating 112’) over a sidewall of the through-hole, wherein the seed layer covers an inner side of the secondary material layer (see Fig. 10);
electroplating (see Fig. 12) a first conductive layer (e.g., thin layer formed early in the plating process of forming plating 112) into the through-hole over the seed layer on both an edge and a surface of the predetermined net terminating land (e.g., conductive layers 108); and
electroplating (see Fig. 12) a second conductive layer (e.g., a remainder of the thickness of plating 112, to obtain the plating 112 shown in Fig. 12) over the plated first conductive layer on both the edge and the surface of the predetermined net terminating land in the through-hole to form a segmented plated through-hole in the multilayer structure.
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise copper. See [0037].
Claim 15. The method of claim 13, wherein the first conductive layer is thinner than the second conductive layer to avoid bridging the void.
Claim 19. The method of claim 13, wherein the secondary material layer comprises a material different from the conductive layer. See “liquid photoimageable plating resist” in [0031].
Claim 20. The method of claim 13, wherein the secondary material layer has a thickness
Claim 21. The method of claim 13, wherein the first conductive layer or the second conductive layer comprises a material (copper; see [0037]) different from the secondary material layer (“liquid photoimageable plating resist” in [0031]).
Claim 22. The method of claim 13,
Claim 23. The method of claim 13, wherein the seed layer covers an inner side of the secondary material layer. See Fig. 10.
Claim 24. The method of claim 13, wherein the seed layer does not cover an inner side of the secondary material layer. See Fig. 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 13, Pen discloses the claimed invention, except for creating a spot face as claimed.
Pen focuses on how to remove a conductive region in a middle portion of the through hole (such as at B in the figure below, which is modified from Fig. 12), but does not give any examples of how to separate the seed layer from an upper/lower outer conductive layer when forming through holes in which one of an upper portion and a lower portion of a through hole is not to be plated, such as at A in the figure below. In Fig. 4, Pen shows a prior art technique in which backdrilling at 64 is used to remove the via stub, but there is no discussion of how the techniques disclosed by Pen are to be used at the upper or lower end of the through hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Buchwalter teaches a method of forming stubless plated through holes in a multilayer PCB, wherein a spot face (compare Figs. 3a and 3b) is created on a top or a bottom of the multilayer PCB after selectively depositing a seed layer (44, Fig. 3a and 3b) over a sidewall of a through-hole (45, Fig. 3a and 3b), wherein the spot face is vertically aligned with the through-hole, wherein the spot face comprises a recess region extending downward or upward into the multilayer structure beyond a top conductive layer or a bottom conductive layer of the multilayer structure and being recessed enough to break an electrical continuity (in region 48; see [0023]) between an inner conductive layer (46, Fig. 3b) connected to the through-hole and the top conductive layer or the bottom conductive layer. When a conductive layer is then formed by electroplating, metal is only deposited on the portion of the through hole where the seed layer was not removed, thereby eliminating the need for later backdrilling (see [0023]).
Taking into consideration the combined teachings of Pen and Buchwalter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize the technique taught by Pen for forming non-plated portions in the middle of the through hole (as B in the figure above), as already taught by Pen, but to also further use the technique taught by Buchwalter to remove the seed layer when forming through holes having non-plated portions starting at the upper/lower conductive surface of the multilayer stack, since this technique avoids the need for backdrilling, as taught by Buchwalter.
Regarding claims 15 and 22, it is readily apparent from Fig. 12 the plating layer 112 would not be so thick as to bridge a void created as discussed above, otherwise area 114 would be covered in electroplated metal. Therefore, the first conductive layer also avoids bridging such a void.
Regarding claim 20, Pen does not disclose the thickness of the secondary material layer 118. However, determining the proper thickness for this layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that if the layer is too thin, the plating layers may bridge across the secondary material layer, negating the effects of the secondary material layer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pen (US2016/0278208A1) in view of Buchwalter and further in view of Thompson (US2019/0141840A1).
Pen as modified in view of Buchwalter renders obvious the claimed invention, except for the seed layer comprising a carbon-based material.
However, it is conventional in the art for the seed layer for electroplating to be electroless Cu, Pd colloidal system, carbon colloidal system, or conductive polymer system. See [0018].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a carbon colloidal system in forming a seed layer for electroplating, as a simple substitution of one known seed layer type (electroless Cu) with another known seed layer type (carbon colloidal system), with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Regarding the withdrawn claims, it should be noted that, in an application, withdrawn process claims are rejoined if they require all the limitations of an allowable product claim (see MPEP 821.04(b). In the instant case, however, the withdrawn claims are product claims, not process claims, and would therefore not be rejoined.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729