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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Appelt et al. (US Patent 6015520).
Regarding claim 1 – Appelt teaches a component carrier (figs. 1(a)-1(b)), comprising: a layer stack (11) with at least one electrically insulating layer ([column 4 line 55] Appelt states, “PWB 10 comprises multiple dielectric layers 11”) structure and/or at least one electrically conductive layer structure (12 [column 4 line 67] Appelt states, “a metal layer 12”); at least one opening (see opening at 14) in the layer stack (11); a first curable dielectric element (see first curable dielectric element 17 overlapping the opening [column 5 lines 24-26] Appelt states, “A layer 17 of photoimageable material (PIM) of substantially uniform thickness is applied over metal layer 12 and PTH 14”) arranged at least partially on the opening (see figs. 1(a)-1(b)); and a second curable dielectric element (see second curable dielectric element 17 outside of the opening) arranged adjacent side-by side to the first curable dielectric element (claimed structure shown in figures 1(a)-1(b)), so that there is an interface region in between (interface region shown at edge of UV light 21); wherein a part of the first curable dielectric element extends partially into the opening (see annotated figure 1(a) below), wherein a cure state of the first curable dielectric element is more cured than a respective cure state of the second curable dielectric element during component carrier manufacturing ([column 6 lines 8-10] Appelt states, “the region of the PIM over PTH 14 (and all other holes in the metal sheet 12) will be exposed to UV light 21 to cure/cross-link the exposed PIM”), and wherein this difference in the respective cure states is determinable at the interface region as an interface pattern (an interface pattern will be present at the interface region at the edge of the UV light 21 exposed cured area).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the part of the first curable dielectric element (figs. 1(a)-1(b), first curable dielectric 17 and 17’ shown above) that extends into the opening comprises a shaped main surface (see “shaped main surface” shown within the opening).
Regarding claim 6 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the part of the first curable dielectric element (figs. 1(a)-1(b), first curable dielectric 17 and 17’ shown above) that extends into the opening (see opening in 11) essentially comprises no glass-fibers ([column 5 lines 37-40] Appelt states, “The PIM may also be "filled" with copper particles to enhance heat and/or electrical conduction and permit solder connection of an electronic component directly to the PIM remaining in the PTH 14”; The first curable dielectric 17 is considered with copper particles having “no glass-filer” in this embodiment).
Regarding claim 7 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the opening (figs. 1(a)-1(b), see opening in 11) comprises at least one of the group which consists of a blind hole, a through hole (the opening is a through hole as shown in figures 1(a) and 1(b)), a cavity, a trench, a recess between traces.
Regarding claim 8 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein sidewalls (fig. 1(a)-1(b), 14) of the opening are at least partially covered by an electrically conductive material ([column 5 lines 2-5] Appelt states, “A hole has been drilled, punched or ablated through the dielectric layers and metal layer 12, and then plated with another metal layer to form a PTH 14”).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt et al. in view of Yonezawa (US PG. Pub. 2023/0108276).
Regarding claim 3 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the interface pattern comprises at least one of the group which consists of at least one cut glass fiber, an alignment shift, a smearing, a color shift, a tapering.
Yonezawa teaches wherein the interface pattern (fig. 8, see interface between cured layer 16A and non-cured part 16) comprises at least one of the group which consists of at least one cut glass fiber, an alignment shift, a smearing, a color shift, a tapering ([paragraph 0102] Yonezawa states, “since a taper angle of the contact hole 22 in the cured layer 16A with respect to a surface direction of the base material 12 in a cross section parallel to a normal direction of the base material 12 is gentle”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the component carrier having an interface pattern between the first and second curable dielectric element as taught by Appelt with the interface pattern having a tapering aspect as taught by Yonezawa because Yonezawa states, “since a taper angle of the contact hole 22 in the cured layer 16A with respect to a surface direction of the base material 12 in a cross section parallel to a normal direction of the base material 12 is gentle, and an angle of a wall surface of the contact hole 22 in a case of being viewed from a side surface is not steep, occurrence of disconnection is suppressed” [paragraph 0102].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt et al.
Regarding claim 4 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the part of the first curable dielectric element (figs. 1(a)-1(b), first curable dielectric 17 and 17’ shown above) extends into the opening to a specific filling height (see height within the opening).
Appelt fails to teach wherein the filling height corresponds to 5% or more of the opening volume, and/or wherein the filling height corresponds to 50% or less of the opening volume.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the filling height corresponds to 5% or more of the opening volume, and/or wherein the filling height corresponds to 50% or less of the opening volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The filling height being 5% to 50% will improve adhesion between the first curable dielectric element and the layer stack.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt et al. in view of Goergen et al. (US PG. Pub. 2009/0045889).
Regarding claim 9 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a diameter of the opening exposed at a layer stack main surface, is larger than a diameter of the opening which is not exposed at the layer stack main surface, wherein the diameter at the opening main surface is a backdrill-opening.
Goergen teaches wherein a diameter (fig. 5E, see diameter at L26) of the opening (180) exposed at a layer stack main surface (bottom surface), is larger than a diameter (see diameter at L01) of the opening (180) which is not exposed at the layer stack main surface (top surface), wherein the diameter at the opening main surface is a backdrill-opening ([paragraph 0044] Goergen states, “The present embodiment reduces the potential for RF reflection disturbances using a second back-drill cycle, as shown in FIG. 5E”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the component carrier having an opening as taught by Appelt with the opening diameter at a main surface is larger due to back drilling than that of the lower surface as taught by Goergen because Goergen states, “It has now been found that significant improvements in signal reflection attenuation, cross-talk attenuation, and EMI (electromagnetic interference) attenuation are possible using, e.g., a stepped backdrill profile” [paragraph 0018].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appelt et al. in view of Matsumura (US PG. Pub. 2007/0270001).
Regarding claim 10 – Appelt teaches the component carrier according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the opening is a fluid-filled cavity embedded in the layer stack.
Matsumura teaches wherein the opening (fig. 1, 24 [paragraph 0037] Matsumura states, “through hole 24”) is a fluid-filled cavity ([paragraph 0050] Matsumura states, “dipped into a bath 8 storing the liquid synthetic resin 7 melted in solvent in a direction from the printed circuit board 2 to the press-fit connector 3 as the through hole part 22”) embedded in the layer stack (see figs. 1 & 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the component carrier having an opening as taught by Appelt with the opening is a fluid-filled cavity as taught by Matsumura because Matsumura states, “the synthetic resin 7 is filled into all of the through hole parts 22 equally and simultaneously with an action of the liquid pressure. The synthetic resin 7 fixes the swarf K to prevent the swarf K from adhering to the other conductive parts and to prevent leak” [paragraph 0052].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights