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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano et al. (US 2007/0051459 A1), in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0118964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamano discloses a method for manufacturing a wiring substrate (Title; Abstract), comprising: forming a resin insulating layer (116) on a first conductor layer (114) such that the resin insulating layer covers the first conductor layer (figs. 2-(1) – 2-(2); pars. 0032-33); applying a roughening treatment on a surface of the resin insulating layer on an opposite side with respect to the first conductor layer (fig. 2-(2); pars. 0033-0036); forming an opening (120) in the resin insulating layer after the roughening treatment on the surface of the resin insulating layer such that the opening penetrates through the resin insulating layer and exposes a portion of the first conductor layer (fig. 2-(5); pars. 0039-0040); applying a desmear treatment on an inner surface of the resin insulating layer in the opening (fig. 2-(5); par. 0039); and forming a second conductor layer (122/124) on the surface of the resin insulating layer such that the second conductor layer is formed in contact with the surface of the resin insulating layer and that a via conductor is formed in the opening of the resin insulating layer (figs. 2-(7) – 2-(8); pars. 0042-0043); wherein applying the roughening treatment comprises processing on the surface of the resin insulating layer (fig. 2-(2); pars. 0033-0036), and the applying of the desmear treatment comprises applying the desmear treatment on the inner surface of the resin insulating layer in the opening before the forming of the second conductor layer (figs. 2-(5) – 2-(8); pars. 0039-0043). Yamano, however, does not explicitly disclose that the applying of the desmear treatment includes a dry treatment comprising a plasma treatment; and the applying of the roughening treatment comprises wet processing using a chemical on the surface of the resin insulating layer.
Nakamura teaches that it is well known to provide a resin insulating layer (resin sheet) on a first conductor layer (internal layer circuit substrate and/or “metal foil”) such that the resin insulating layer covers the first conductor layer (Abstract; par. 0046); applying a roughening treatment on a surface of the resin insulating layer (pars. 0143-0147); forming an opening in the resin insulating layer (Abstract); applying a dry desmear treatment includes comprising a plasma treatment (pars. 0122-0127 and 0189-0191); and the applying of the roughening treatment comprises wet processing using a chemical (“oxidant solution” and/or “swelling solution”) on the surface of the resin insulating layer (pars. 0129 and 0141-0147).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yamano to incorporate the wet chemical roughening and dry plasma desmearing steps of Nakamura. POSITA would have realized that either wet or dry roughening and either wet or dry desmearing can be easily and readily employed to achieve the desired roughness and surface cleaning. In fact, Nakamura explicitly discloses that these techniques are well-known and easily interchanged for one another as desired. Further, the use of a wet roughening step in lieu of the conductive plate roughening of Yamano would have predictably been more cost effective (no wasted copper sheets) and less time consuming, thus decreasing manufacturing cost and time. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special roughening or desmearing step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Yamano with the well-known wet roughening and dry desmearing of Nakamura. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, Yamano in view of Nakamura, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above. Additionally, Nakamura teaches that it is well known to perform the method such that the plasma treatment of the dry desmear treatment uses CF4, CF4 + O2, or corona discharge (par. 0173).
Regarding claim 3, Yamano in view of Nakamura, teaches the method of claim 2 as detailed above, and Nakamura further teaches that it is well known that the chemical in the wet processing includes an oxidizing agent (“oxidant solution”: par. 0129).
Regarding claim 4, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Yamano further discloses covering the surface of the resin insulating layer with a protective layer (118), wherein the applying of the desmear treatment comprises applying the desmear treatment in a state in which the surface of the resin insulating layer is covered by the protective layer (fig. 2-(5); pars. 0038-0040).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 15 and 19, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches the method(s) of claims 1-4 as detailed above, and Yamano further discloses that the formation of the openings is performed using a laser beam (par. 0014). Nakamura teaches that is well known to perform the step of forming the openings using an excimer laser (pars 0116-0118).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 17, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1-3. Yamano further discloses that the opening is formed in the resin insulating layer such that the opening penetrates through the resin insulating layer and the covering layer and exposes the portion of the first conductor layer (fig. 2-(5)). Additionally, Nakamura teaches that it is well known to perform the step of forming a covering layer comprising an organic coating film (“alkyd resin” “release layer”) on a surface of the first conductor layer wherein the resin insulating layer is formed on the covering layer such that the covering layer is formed between the first conductor layer and the resin insulating layer (pars. 0046-0050).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yamano to incorporate the organic layer of Nakamura. POSITA would have realized that organic layers are very commonly used and can be easily and readily laminated upon conductors to achieve the desired adhesion or peelability, isolation or other well-known benefits. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special organic layer was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Yamano with the well-known organic layer of Nakamura. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 8, 14 and 18, Yamano in view of Nakamura, teaches the method(s) of claims 1-3. Additionally, Nakamura teaches that it is well known to perform the roughening treatment such that the surface of the resin insulating layer is formed to have an arithmetic mean roughness in a range of 0.03 µm to 1.0 µm (par. 0160).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yamano to incorporate the preferred roughness of Nakamura. POSITA would have realized that both references desire to form a small (micro order) roughness (see, e.g., par. [0036] of Yamano) and that the more precise, smaller order roughness of Nakamura, can be easily and readily incorporated into the method of Yamano to achieve the desired adhesion capability. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special roughness forming step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Yamano with the well-known preferred roughness value of Nakamura. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 9, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches the method of claim 2 as detailed above, and Nakamura further teaches that it is well known the chemical in the wet processing includes an oxidizing agent comprising permanganate (par. 0129).
Regarding claim 10, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches the method of claim 3 as detailed above, and Yamano further discloses covering the surface of the resin insulating layer with a protective layer (118), wherein the applying of the desmear treatment comprises applying the desmear treatment in a state in which the surface of the resin insulating layer is covered by the protective layer (fig. 2-(5); pars. 0038-0040). As noted above, Nakamura teaches that the desmear treatment is a dry desmear treatment.
Claims 6, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano, in view of Nakamura, further in view of Kodaira et al. (JP 2010-010639 A).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 16 and 20, Yamano in view of Nakamura teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1-4. The modified Yamano, however, does not apparently teach applying ultrasonic cleaning on the inner surface of the resin insulating layer in the opening before the forming of the second conductor layer.
Kodaira teaches that it is well known to perform a similar process (Title; Abstract), including applying ultrasonic cleaning on the inner surface of the resin insulating layer in the opening before the forming of the second conductor layer (pg. 7, lines 8-12).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yamano to incorporate the ultrasonic cleaning of the formed opening of Kodaira. POSITA would have realized that cleaning can be easily and readily incorporated in order to achieve the desired adhesion, predictably conductive through connection, and avoidance of unwanted deleterious delamination. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special cleaning step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Yamano with the well-known ultrasonic cleaning of Kodaira. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The entirety of the Applicant’s assertions regarding the prior art are directed toward this piecemeal style of argument, and are thus not compelling. Nonetheless, as a courtesy, the arguments will still be addressed.
With respect to Yamano, Applicant has asserted that “[i]n the process of forming the roughened surface (R) of the resin film (116), the top surface of the resin film (116) is necessarily covered by the metallic foil (118), making inappropriate for and directing away from the use of the roughening treatment comprising wet processing using a chemical.” This argument is not compelling because while metallic foil (118) is the disclosed mechanism for roughening, it is also subsequently removed and is thus only one known expedient for roughening and is not part of the product formed. Accordingly, and based upon the proper rationale for combination, above, it is obvious that a different, more efficient and also well-known expedient can be employed for the roughening step. This is the purpose of citing Nakamura. To substitute the use of dry etching in lieu of the metal plate roughening would have been quite obvious to POSITA, as both were well known roughening mechanisms long before filing of the instant application. Further, regarding applicant’s arguments that Yamano teaches away from the proposed modification, it is noted that the applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. The applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. In this case, Yamano does not in any manner teach away from the use of dry plasma etching, which is known to be more cost effective, more efficient and to consume fewer material resources. Accordingly, the combination is appropriate and proper rationale for combination has been clearly provided.
Subsequently, Applicant has provided another piecemeal argument against the applicability of Nakamura. This argument is not proper as it attacks the references individually as noted above. Further, the applicant has argued against Nakamura by attacking whether it discloses limitations for which it is not even relied upon to teach. Thus the argument is moot. Applicant states that “the sequence of the Nakamura et al. processes makes inappropriate for and directs away from roughening a surface of a resin insulating layer by wet processing using a chemical, and then forming a via hole in the resin insulating layer and applying a desmear treatment to the via hole formed in the resin insulating layer”. Nakamura is not in any manner relied upon to disclose or teach the “sequence” of the claimed process, but is instead simply relied upon to teach that the claimed dry plasma roughening treatment is an obvious equivalent expedient to the plate roughening of Yamano. Further, as noted above, proper rationale for the substitution of known techniques has been provided by the Examiner and thus the argument is not compelling.
If the Applicant still doubts the obviousness of the combination whereby the dry roughening treatment is substituted for the plate roughening then please refer to Farnworth (US 5,487,999) which explicitly recites that any of the well-known roughening expedients (plate, wet or dry roughening) can be used with reasonable expectation of success (fig. 1E; col. 5, lines 11-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Farnworth (US 5,487,999), which is particularly relevant to the preferred claimed methods of roughening and desmear treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729