DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communications filed 26 September 2022 and 17 December 2025. In view of these communications, claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 11-18 withdrawn.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 17 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 20140069694 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cho et al.
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. teaches a package substrate, comprising:
a core (110) (Fig. 6, paragraph 52: substrate 110);
a pad (120) over the core (110) (Fig. 6, paragraph 52: circuit pattern 120);
a solder resist (130) over the pad (120) (Fig. 6, paragraph 52: solder resist 130);
an opening into the solder resist (130) to expose a portion of the pad (120) (Fig 6: opening in solder resist 130 in which plating layers 140, 150, and 160 are formed); and
a surface finish (140, 150, 160) over the pad (120) and within the opening (Fig. 6, paragraph 52: plating layers 140, 150, and 160 are formed on pad 120 where the solder resist 130 is opened)
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the surface finish (140, 150, 160) extends up sidewalls of the opening (Fig. 6, paragraphs 52 and 55: the finish layers 140, 150, and 160 are formed in the opening of resist 130 such that they partially extend up the wall of the opening in resist 130).
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the surface finish comprises nickel (140), palladium (150), and gold (160) (paragraph 60: nickel layer 140, palladium layer 150, and gold layer 160).
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the pad (120) is a solder resist defined pad (Fig. 6: the boundaries of the pad 120 are formed by the solder resist 130).
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the pad (120) is metal defined pad (paragraph 70: the pad 120 is copper).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Chinda et al. (DE 102006012322 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chinda et al.
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al. teaches package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the surface finish extends up an entire length of the sidewalls of the opening.
Chinda et al. does teach that the surface finish extends up an entire length of the sidewalls of the opening (see Figs. 7 and 18 of Chinda et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface finish of Cho et al. such that it extends up the sidewalls of the opening as taught by Chinda et al. because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Zhang et al. (US 20130320547 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 5, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the surface finish is plated with an electrolytic process.
Zhang et al. does teach that the surface finish may be plated with an electrolytic process (see Zhang et al. paragraphs 25-26 and 32-33: Ni-Pd-Au films may be advantageously formed by an electrolytic plating process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface finish of Cho et al. from an electrolytic process as taught by Zhang et al. because the electrolytic process of Zhang et al. is known in the art for forming conductive plating layers with higher purity and better conductivity.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Kawano et al. (US 20200343293 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kawano et al.
Regarding claim 6, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach an adhesion promoting layer over the pad.
Kawano et al. does teach an adhesion promoting layer (51) over the pad (31) (Kawano et al. paragraph 50: nitrogen and silicon bonded in intermediate region 51 to promote adhesion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adhesion promoting layer as taught by Kawano et al. over the pad of Cho et al. because the adhesion promoting layer of Kawano et al. improves adhesion between conductor layers (Kawano et al. paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 7, Kawano et al. in view of Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 6, wherein the adhesion promoting layer comprises silicon and nitrogen (Kawano et al. paragraph 50: nitrogen and silicon bonded in intermediate region 51 to promote adhesion).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of LeClair (US 20220071009 A1), hereinafter referred to as LeClair.
Regarding claim 10, Cho et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the core comprises a borosilicate glass or a fused silica glass.
LeClair does teach that the core may comprise a borosilicate glass or a fused silica glass (LeClair paragraph 67: borosilicate glass may be used for electronic substrates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the core of Cho et al. from a borosilicate glass as taught by Zhang et al. because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416."
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinda et al in view of Cho et al.
Regarding claim 19, Chinda et al. teaches electronic system, comprising: a board (100); a package substrate coupled to the board (130) (page 7, paragraph 11), wherein the package substrate comprises: a core (120) (page 7, paragraph 11); a pad (110) over the core (120) (page 7, third-to-last paragraph); a solder resist (102) over the pad (110), wherein an opening through the solder resist (102) exposes a portion of the pad (110) (page 7, third-to-last paragraph); and a die (201) coupled to the package substrate (page 8, paragraph 5). Chinda et al. does not teach a surface finish over the pad within the opening and up sidewalls of the opening.
Cho et al. does teach a surface finish over the pad within the opening and up sidewalls of the opening (Fig. 6, paragraphs 52 and 55: the finish layers 140, 150, and 160 are formed in the opening of resist 130 such that they partially extend up the wall of the opening in resist 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pads of Chinda et al. with a surface finish as taught by Cho et al. because the surface finish of Cho et al. enables complete, reliable coverage of the pad (Cho et al. paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 20, Chinda et al. in view of Cho et al. teaches the electronic system of claim 19, wherein the surface finish comprises nickel (140), palladium (150), and gold (160) (paragraph 60: nickel layer 140, palladium layer 150, and gold layer 160).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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 J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847