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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected processing system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Note: line numbers in this section are as dictated by the Applicant in the claim set of 11/04/2022.
Claim 1 discloses:
A. “preparing an intermediate substrate comprising an insulating layer, a conductor layer including a plurality of conductor circuits formed on the insulating layer, and a first resin insulating layer formed on the insulating layer and covering the conductor layer” (lines 4-6; emphasis added);
B. “inputting, to a laser processing machine… a plurality of positions at which the plurality of openings is to be formed in the intermediate substrate” (lines 7-10; emphasis added);
C. “generating, based on analysis of the conductor layer, classification of the plurality of conductor circuits” (lines 11-12; emphasis added);
D. “inputting, to the laser processing machine, a plurality of shot numbers for forming the plurality of openings determined based on the classification of the plurality of conductor circuits in the conductor layer” (lines 14-16; emphasis added); and
E. “executing the laser processing machine based on the plurality of positions and the plurality of shot numbers such that the plurality of openings is formed in the intermediate substrate” (lines 17-19; emphasis added).
Regarding “A”, the term “preparing” is so broad as to be vague. Is the intention to actually “form” or “manufacture” or combine the insulating layer, conductor layer, conductor circuits and first resin insulating layer? Or, is the “preparing” a step of “providing”? Or is it a step of polishing, or planarizing or laminating or thinning or stacking, etc.? The claim provides no information whatsoever to answer these questions and thus the scope or metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. As best understood, it seems likely that the intention is for the “intermediate substrate” to be “formed” of the subsequently disclosed elements which comprise the intermediate substrate. That being so, currently any of the above alternative interpretations are held to be reasonable.
With respect to “B” and “D”, the reader cannot possibly know how one is intended to perform this purported step of “inputting”, as there is no attendant structure (e.g. a computer or controller or PC or CPU or keypad or program or algorithm) associated with the step.
Regarding “C”, this limitation is similarly indefinite to “B” and “D”, as there is no structure, device or apparatus disclosed in the claim such that the “generating” can be performed. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “analysis of the conductor layer” as no such analysis has been performed, nor is there any element capable of performing such “analysis”.
With respect to “E”, there is no industry term which correlates to “executing the laser processing machine” and the reader is left to guess what “executing” means in this context. Executing in the art is generally in reference to “executing” code, or a program or a step or process in general, and not to a “machine”. How does one “execute” a machine? The claim does not answer this question. Further, one cannot possibly surmise how, or in what manner, the purported “executing” would be “based on the plurality of positions and the plurality of shot numbers”. The term “based on” is so broad as to be vague, and any relationship (real or imagined) possible would fall within the realm of being “based on” the object which follows.
Claims 2-17 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the plurality of openings is formed such that all of the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category are formed with a same shot number and that all of the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category are formed with a same shot number” (lines 5-8; emphasis added). The simple question which the claim does not answer is: “a same shot number” as what? A same shot number as one another? Is the “a same shot number” in the second recitation the same as the shot number previously recited, or a different “same shot number”?
Claim 4 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method for manufacturing a printed wiring board according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the classification includes classifying the plurality of conductor circuits belonging to the first category into the plurality of power supply conductor circuits and the plurality of ground conductor circuits.” (lines 15-18; emphasis added). It appears that the limitations of claim 4 are already included in claim 1 (lines 22-25). As such, the purpose of claim 4 cannot be ascertained and it is not clear if limitations were inadvertently omitted from claim 4, or if it simply fails to further limit claim 1.
Claim 5 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the shot number for forming the openings reaching the power supply conductor circuits and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the ground conductor circuits are a same number” (lines 21-23; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for effectively the same reasons as claim 2. The claim does not answer the question: “a same number” as what?
Claim 12 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the forming of the openings includes performing one of forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category, and forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category, and performing the other one of forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category, and forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category” (lines 7-12; emphasis added). This claim is simply impossible to logically follow. Further, the alternative language, “performing one of…” and “performing the other one of…” makes no logical sense and makes it impossible to guess at the intended scope or metes and bounds of the claim. The Applicant is encouraged to decide what the inventive method actually is and to claim as much, rather than to claim various indefinite alternatives in such a manner as to be essentially unintelligible.
Claim 13 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method for manufacturing a printed wiring board according to claim 1, wherein the analysis of the conductor layer includes at least one of a layout of the conductor layer, shapes of the conductor circuits, a number of the openings, connection destinations of the conductor circuits, and the positions of the openings” (lines 14-17; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite because the “analysis” was never actually performed in claim 1 and is not actually positively recited as being performed in this claim either. Further, one cannot know how or using what purported device the supposed “analysis” is to be performed. Further still, the “at least one of” language is not a recitation of obvious alternatives but instead is an indefinite disclosure of numerous possible methods, which may or may not have actually been performed by the Applicant. This one claim contains 120 different possible methods, which is entirely unreasonable and indefinite.
Claim 15 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method for manufacturing a printed wiring board according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the classification includes classifying the plurality of conductor circuits belonging to the first category into the plurality of power supply conductor circuits and the plurality of ground conductor circuits” (lines 24-27; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for effectively the same reasons as claim 4 and apparently does not further limit the method of the claims, as the limitations appear to already have been disclosed in claim 1.
Claim 16 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The method for manufacturing a printed wiring board according to claim 15, wherein the shot number for forming the openings reaching the power supply conductor circuits and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the ground conductor circuits are a same number” (lines 24-27; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for effectively the same reasons as claims 2 and 5.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e., claims 1-17) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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 1-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat et al. (CA 2 370 832), in view of Wilbanks et al. (CA 2 624 200).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Moffat discloses a method for manufacturing a printed wiring board (pg. 6, lines 1-5), comprising: preparing an intermediate substrate (14a,b and 16a,b) comprising an insulating layer(16a), a conductor layer (14a) including a plurality of conductor circuits (14a,b) formed on the insulating layer, and a first resin insulating layer (epoxy: 16b) formed on the insulating layer and covering the conductor layer (fig. 1B; pg. 6, lines 6-11); inputting, to a laser processing machine (10, 20, 40) configured to form a plurality of openings for a plurality of via conductors such that the openings penetrate through the first resin insulating layer and reach the conductor layer, a plurality of positions at which the plurality of openings is to be formed in the intermediate substrate (fig. 1A; pg. 6, lines 19-21; pg. 7, lines 5-12); generating, based on analysis of the conductor layer, classification of the plurality of conductor circuits in the conductor layer under the plurality of positions at which the plurality of openings is to be formed in the intermediate substrate (pg. 9, lines 6-27; pg. 10, lines 3-17); inputting, to the laser processing machine, [information] for forming the plurality of openings determined based on the classification of the plurality of conductor circuits in the conductor layer (pg. 11, lines 1-12: pulse length and repetition rate are inputted); and executing the laser processing machine based on the plurality of positions and the plurality of shot numbers such that the plurality of openings is formed in the intermediate substrate, wherein the plurality of conductor circuits in the conductor layer includes a plurality of *power supply conductor circuits, a plurality of ground conductor circuits, and a plurality of signal conductor circuits, the classification includes stratifying the plurality of conductor circuits into a first category and a second category such that the plurality of power supply conductor circuits and the plurality of ground conductor circuits belong to the first category and that the plurality of signal conductor circuits belongs to the second category, and the inputting of the shot numbers for forming the openings includes setting the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category is smaller than the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4). Moffat, however, does not explicitly disclose inputting a plurality of shot numbers.
Note: the distinctions in the claim wherein the circuits are named as being one of “power supply conductor circuits” or “ground conductor circuits” or “signal conductor circuits” do not understandably affect the method of forming via holes in any discernable manner. There is no inherent structural difference in the purportedly different types of circuits in the claims or in the art. What determines the intended functional capabilities of circuits is what other structures (i.e. power supply, ground, i/o devices, etc.) and none of these are recited. As such, the intended functions of the product to be worked upon are not found to carry patentable weight as claimed, and the circuit structures of the prior art are held to be capable of performing the intended functions.
Wilbanks teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method for manufacturing a printed wiring board (par. 0009), comprising: preparing an intermediate substrate (component, 400) comprising an insulating layer (polyesters), a conductor layer (metals), and a first resin insulating layer (polyimide) formed on the insulating layer (pars. 0070-0072); inputting, to a laser processing machine(100, 305, 700) configured to (capable of) form a plurality of openings for a plurality of via conductors such that the openings penetrate through the first resin insulating layer and reach the conductor layer, a plurality of positions at which the plurality of openings is to be formed in the intermediate substrate (pars. 0070 and 0072); generating, classification of the plurality of positions at which the plurality of openings is to be formed in the intermediate substrate (pars. 0076 and 0084-0085); inputting, to the laser processing machine, a plurality of shot numbers for forming the plurality of openings determined based on the classification of the plurality of conductor circuits in the conductor layer (pars. 0052-0053); and executing the laser processing machine based on the plurality of positions and the plurality of shot numbers such that the plurality of openings is formed in the intermediate substrate (par. 0084), and the inputting of the shot numbers for forming the openings includes setting the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category is smaller than the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category (figs. 6-7; pars. 0052-0053, 0076, 0084 and 0087).
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 Moffat to incorporate the inputting of shot numbers of Wilbanks. POSITA would have realized that incorporating pulse quantities can be easily and readily incorporated to achieve the desired drilling depth, and precision; especially since Moffat discloses inputting the pulse length and the repetition rate. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special inputting of shot numbers was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Moffat with the well-known shot number input information of Wilbanks. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Wilbanks further teaches that it is well known that the plurality of openings is formed such that all of the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category are formed with a same shot number and that all of the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category are formed with a same shot number (pars. 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a number of the openings reaching each of the conductor circuits belonging to the first category is two or more, and a number of the openings reaching each of the conductor circuits belonging to the second category is one (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4: the term “a number”, as claimed, is very broad, Moffat discloses sequential hole forming, and as such, at some point in time during the processing the second category has only one hole formed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose to form whatever number of holes is required or desired since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the generating of the classification includes classifying the plurality of conductor circuits belonging to the first category into the plurality of power supply conductor circuits and the plurality of ground conductor circuits. Please refer to rejection and Note as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 4 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the shot number for forming the openings reaching the power supply conductor circuits and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the ground conductor circuits are a same number (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4: the term “the shot number”, as claimed, is broad).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 4 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a number of the openings reaching each of the plurality of power supply conductor circuits is two or more, and a number of the openings reaching each of the signal conductor circuits is one (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 4 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a number of the openings reaching each of the ground conductor circuits is two or more, and a number of the openings reaching each of the signal conductor circuits is one (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a difference between the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category is 1 or 2 (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 10 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the shot number for forming the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category is 1, and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the plurality of conductor circuits belonging to the second category is 2 (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the forming of the openings includes performing one of forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category, and forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category, and performing the other one of forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the first category, and forming all the openings reaching the conductor circuits belonging to the second category (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the analysis of the conductor layer includes at least one of a layout of the conductor layer, shapes of the conductor circuits, a number of the openings, connection destinations of the conductor circuits, and the positions of the openings (pg. 7, lines 5-12; pg. 9, lines 6-18).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 2 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a number of the openings reaching each of the conductor circuits belonging to the first category is two or more, and a number of the openings reaching each of the conductor circuits belonging to the second category is one (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 1 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that the generating of the classification includes classifying the plurality of conductor circuits belonging to the first category into the plurality of power supply conductor circuits and the plurality of ground conductor circuits (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 15 as detailed above, and Wilbanks further teaches that it is well known that the shot number for forming the openings reaching the power supply conductor circuits and the shot number for forming the openings reaching the ground conductor circuits are a same number (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches the method of claim 15 as detailed above, and Moffat further discloses that a number of the openings reaching each of the plurality of power supply conductor circuits is two or more, and a number of the openings reaching each of the signal conductor circuits is one (pp. 11-12, lines 13-32 and 1-4).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat in view of Wilbanks, further in view of Gower (GB 2 337 719 A).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks teaches all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. The modified Moffat, however, does not appear to teach forming a plurality of via conductors in the plurality of openings, respectively; and laminating a second conductor layer on the first resin insulating layer; and laminating a second resin insulating layer on the first resin insulating layer such that the second resin insulating layer covers the second conductor layer.
Gower teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method (Title; Abstract); further comprising: forming a plurality of via conductors (plated blind microvia holes) in the plurality of openings, respectively; and laminating a second conductor layer (middle layer of plated copper) on the first resin insulating layer; and laminating a second resin insulating layer (top layer of dielectric) on the first resin insulating layer such that the second resin insulating layer covers the second conductor layer (fig. 1; pg. 6, lines 4-8; pg. 7, lines 29-30; pg. 11, lines 8-15).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Moffat to incorporate the laminating and plating of additional conductor and insulating layers of Gower. POSITA would have realized that any number of layers can be easily and readily added to the formed circuit board of Moffat to achieve the desired circuit footprint, pattern and functionality. In fact, Moffat states that multiple layers can be incorporated. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special layer steps were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Moffat with the well-known additional conductor and resin layers of Gower. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Moffat in view of Wilbanks and further in view of Gower teaches the method of claim8 as detailed above, and Gower further teaches that it is well known that the plurality openings reaching each of the conductor circuits belonging to the first category includes a first opening and a second opening (three shown), and the plurality of via conductors includes a first via conductor formed in the first opening and a second via conductor formed in the second opening such that the first via conductor and the second via conductor are connected in parallel by the second conductor layer (fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Sun et al. (US 2005/0087522 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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