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 § 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 1-7 and 9-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “
PNG
media_image1.png
24
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”. This equation contain unbalanced units. The left side of the equation is in unit of length. The right side of the equation is in unit of length over unit of stress. Thus, the equation is invalid and considered indefinite. In order to examine this application, examiner will not considered the equation.
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 depends on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2020/0196444; hereinafter “Jin”) in view of Kamiya et al. (US 7,879,656; hereinafter “Kamiya”).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Jin teaches a flexible circuit board (Figs. 1-11; see note below regarding preamble) with multi-layer via structure, comprising:
a plurality of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) layers (L, L1-L5, Figs. 1-11; [0057]: “The insulating layer L may be formed of….liquid crystal polymer…”), wherein each of the LCP layers comprises via structures (V, 100, 500, 600, Figs. 1-11); and
a plurality of metal layers (300, 400, C, C1-C6, Figs. 1-11) having a plurality of circuit routes (such as shown in Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the metal layers and the LCP layers are alternatively stacked to form a multi-layer structure (as shown in Figs. 1-11), and each of the via structures is configured to electrically connect adjacent two of the metal layers (as shown in Figs. 1-11);
wherein each of the LCP layers has at least one via structure substantially aligned (such as shown in Figs. 1-11) with another via structure in another LCP layer to form a via-structure stack (as shown in Figs. 1-11);
wherein each of the via structures has an opening (opening of L, L1-L5 for V, 100, 500, 600) filled with conductive material ([0100]: “…copper (Cu)… metal thereof…”) to enable the via structures to electrically connect the circuit routes of adjacent two metal layers, thereby forming a stack structure for continuous electric connections ([0082]);
wherein the opening has a side wall having a tilt angle to form a trapezoid shape in a cross-section (self-explanatory in Figs. 1-11; also see [0084, 0089]: “…trapezoid…” ).
Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive material is a conductive paste. However, Kamiya teaches a conductive paste (4, Fig. 4) used in multi-layer via structure (as shown in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conductive material is a conductive paste in Jin, as taught by Kamiya, in order to save costs and used common material as conductive material for the multi-layer via structure.
*Examiner' s note: The recitation “flexible circuit board” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of the limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein an offset between adjacent two via structures is equal to or smaller than 75 um in the substantially aligned via structures (see Figs. 1, 5, 7, 9, 11; [0062]: “…the unit vias 100 and 110 may be completely vertically stacked, or may be stacked with a slight offset in a vertical direction…”]; note completely vertically stacked means less than 75 um).
Regarding claim 3, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein the LCP layers are directly connected with the metal layers in the multi-layer structure, and the tensile modulus of the LCP layers is equal to or greater than 3 Gpa (note that Jin also uses LCP layers, which is the same as applicant’s, thus, the tensile modulus is also equal or greater than 3GPa).
Regarding claim 4, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein the multi-layer structure comprises at least three LCP layers and at least three metal layers alternatively stacked (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), each of the LCP layers comprises at least one aligned via structure, and a thickness variation between adjacent two of the LCP layers is in a range from 0% to 10% (as shown in Figs. 1,3, 5, 7, 9, 11; note all the figures appear to show either no variation or minimal variation in thickness of L1-L5).
Regarding claim 5, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein material of the metal layers comprises copper, silver, gold, aluminum, nickel, iron or an alloy thereof ([0077]: “…copper… or a metal thereof…”).
Regarding claim 6, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein distance between center of two adjacent vias may be 1 mm or less (Fig. 2 and [0048]). However, Jin does not explicitly teach a width of each of the circuit routes and a distance between adjacent two of the circuit routes in the metal layers are equal to or smaller than 50 um, and an uniformity of the circuit routes is ±5 um. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a width of each of the circuit routes and a distance between adjacent two of the circuit routes in the metal layers are equal to or smaller than 50 um, and an uniformity of the circuit routes is ±5 um in Jin, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, a general structure of the circuit routes in the metal layers are already disclosed, and that the width and distance between adjacent two of the circuit routes can be easily designed by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the specific usage, furthermore, the trends of the technology are also to have smaller and more compact circuit routes, thus, having less distance and better uniformity are general direction in the art, and it does not provide any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1. Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive paste comprising gold, silver, copper, nickel, tin, bismuth, carbon, carbon nanotube, or at least an alloy thereof. However, Examiner hereby takes Official Notice (EON) of the conventionality of the conductive paste comprising gold, silver, copper, nickel, tin, bismuth, carbon, carbon nanotube, or at least an alloy thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of EON with that of Jin since doing so would, predictably, select well established conductive material for the vias in order to easily provide electrical connection.
Since the Applicant did not challenge the Examiner' s above given Official Notice, the above given Official Notice has become the Applicant' s prior art admission (see MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding claim 9, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein a number of the LCP layers in the multi-layer structure with via is greater than 3 (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11).
Regarding claim 10, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein the multi-layer structure has a structure surface comprising at least one electric component (A, Fig. 2) electrically connected to at least one of the metal layers (as shown in Fig. 2; also see [0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1, and Jin further teaches wherein at least one of the metal layers comprises antenna circuit (A, Fig. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Kamiya, and further in view of White et al. (US 7,260,890; hereinafter “White ‘890”).
Regarding claim 11, Jin in view of Kamiya teaches the flexible circuit board of claim 1. Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-layer structure comprises at least one bending portion. However, White teaches a multi-layer structures (Figs. 1-8) comprises at least one bending portion (see claim 9: “…3-D circuit is a flexible circuit”; note that flexible circuit means it’s bendable and can have at least one bending portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multi-layer structure comprises at least one bending portion in Jin in view of Kamiya, as taught by White ‘890, in order to allow more compact design of a device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following argument:
Applicant alleges, in regards to claim 1, that one skilled in the art can understand that the tensile modulus k in the equation is used as a factor or a value having no unit. The tensile modulus k in the equation represents a factor showing how the material affects the size of the via. It is noted that the value of the tensile modulus k is known when the material and fabrication method of the flexible circuit board is determined.
For example, in page 11 of the attach document D 1 (Advanced Materials - 2016 - Rim - Recent Progress in Materials and Devices toward Printable and Flexible Sensors), equation (11) shows how to calculate a stiffness value EI:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where E , b , h , and y represent the Young's modulus, the width of the device, the thickness of the device, and the distance between the neutral plane and the bottom, respectively. One skilled in the art can understand how to calculate the stiffness value EI through equation (11) even if equation (11) contains unbalanced units, in which the Young's modulus is used as a factor having no unit. Therefore, one skilled in the art can understand that the equation of claim 1 shows a relationship between Vb, Vt, Vh and Bh since k is known value and used as a factor having no unit. (remarks on pages 6-7).
Applicant argued that tensile modulus k has no unit. However, tensile modulus or young’s modulus has SI unit of pressure Pa , which is pascal. Applicant attempt to argue that 2016 Rim reference also have an equation (11) that has unbalanced units and that young’s modulus has no unit. However, equation (11) is perfectly balanced unlike Applicant’s equation. The flexural rigidity EI, on the left side of the equation, has SI units of Pa*m4. The equation on the right side also have Pa*m4. Applicant’s own example equation (11) proof that equation needs to be balanced. Thus, applicant’s respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 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 JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841