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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed on June 27, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaya (Japanese document, JP2001511602A, submitted by the applicant), in view of Hotta (US 2013/0252443), Yamaguchi (US 6,669,869), Shimada (US 2008/0156522), Worthen (US 6,052,286), and Carey (US 5101,553).
Regarding claim 1, Kaya, 6B, discloses an interposer to couple together a first substrate and a second substrate (2, 4, as only interposer structure of the instant invention is used), the first substrate including a first- substrate upper main surface and a first-substrate lower main surface and including a first electrode that is a portion of the first-substrate lower main surface (see figure), the second substrate including a second-substrate upper main surface and a second- substrate lower main surface and including a second electrode that is a portion of the second-substrate upper main surface (see figure), the interposer comprising: a resin layer (26, polymer layer formed of resin is old and known in the art. Additionally, see explanation below) including a resin-layer upper main surface to be joined to the first-substrate lower main surface and a resin- layer lower main surface to be joined to the second-substrate upper main surface (see figure); and a plurality of metal bodies (17) in the resin layer and separated from each other, a dimension of each of the plurality of metal bodies in an upward-downward direction being greater than a dimension of each of the plurality of metal bodies in a direction orthogonal to the upward-downward direction (see figure); wherein at least one of the plurality of metal bodies is located in the first electrode and at least one of the plurality of metal bodies is located in the second electrode to electrically couple together the first electrode and the second electrode (see figure); and at least some of the plurality of metal bodies are elastically deformable such that a portion of the at least some of the plurality of metal bodies that are in the resin layer are configured to be curved (see explanation below).
Additionally, Yamaguchi, figure 1-2, discloses an interposer formed resin insulating layer (1A), column 4, line 29-45), and conductive path (2), column 7, line 4-12).
Hotta, figure 1B, discloses an interposer formed resin insulating layer (109), paragraph 0017-0018), and conductive path (11, paragraph 0031).
Shimada, figure 3, discloses an interposer formed of resin material (paragraph 0018) and metal bodies (conductive member formed of metal (paragraph 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the application to provide the interposer of Kaya formed of resin, as taught by Yamaguchi, Hotta, and Shimada, in order to desired bonding with wire inside, including necessary insulating properties.
Additionally, 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the limitation “at least some of the plurality of metal bodies are elastically deformable such that a portion of the at least some of the plurality of metal bodies that are in the resin layer are configured to be curved.”
Worthen, figure 5, discloses an interposer formed of polymer film (not labeled) with metal fibrils (31), and further discloses the metal fibrils deform in the polymer layer (see figure, column 8, line 16-23).
Carey, figure 12, discloses an interposer formed of elastomer (32) with metal wire (44), and further discloses the metal wire deformed in the elastomer layer (see figure, column 4, line 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the application to provide the metal bodies being deformable such that a portion of the at least some of the plurality of metal bodies that are in the resin layer are configured to be curved, as taught by Worthen, and Carey, in order to have enhanced interconnection.
Additionally, configured to be curved requires the metal bodies to be capable of being curved / bent. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138, (CCPA 1946).
Therefore, the modified interposer of Kaya meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of metal bodies are elastically deformed to apply an upward force to the first electrode and to apply a downward force to the second electrode (obvious as the structure of Kaya is obtained bonding of two substrate together, will be carried out with applying pressure. Additionally, see figure 1B of Hotta, paragraph 0032, 0065).
Regarding claim 3, Regarding claim 2, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein a material for the resin layer has a lower melting point than an insulating material for a body of the first substrate and an insulating material for a body of the second substrate (obvious to avoid damage to the first and second substate while bonding, as bonding would have been performed by pressure and temperature. Additionally, Yamaguchi discloses the polymer / resin with low melting temperature, column 2, line 45-63).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein the plurality of metal bodies are distributed over an entirety of the resin layer as viewed in the upward-downward direction (see figures of Kaya, Yamaguchi, and Hotta).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein each of the metal bodies includes a core; and a material for the core has a higher Vickers hardness than a material for the first electrode and a material for the second electrode (obvious to have enhanced electrical connection. Additionally, Kaya discloses conductive insert made of hard material, claim 17, formed of Nickel, description at figure 4D. Hotta discloses formed of Nickel, paragraph 111).
Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein each of the metal bodies includes a core and a surface layer covering a surface of the core; and a material for the surface layer has a higher ductility than a material for the core (obvious as tip of the metal bodies are made of gold coating, Kaya on the core of copper).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein an insulating material for a body of the first substrate is identical to an insulating material for a body of the second substrate (not explicitly disclosed but obvious to select the material of the substrate to have desired property and functionality).
Additionally, 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein a type of material for the resin layer is identical to a type of insulating material for a body of the first substrate (not explicitly disclosed but obvious to select the material of the substrate to have desired property and functionality).
Additionally, 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of metal bodies is inserted into the first electrode without chemical bonding with the first electrode and at least one of the plurality of metal bodies is inserted into the second electrode without chemical bonding (obvious as connection is made by pressing and physical contact of the metal bodies without any king of soldering).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses a substrate module comprising: the interposer according to Claim 1; the first substrate; and the second substrate (obvious as explained and applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein the first substrate further includes a first signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the first electrode; and the second substrate further includes a second signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the second electrode (obvious as the contact pads are generally internally connected to trace to transmit the signal).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein the first substrate extends in a first direction orthogonal to the upward-downward direction; and the second substrate extends in a second direction orthogonal to the upward-downward direction and different from the first direction (obvious as shown by the Kaya, as well as, Hotta).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses an interposer comprising: a resin layer; and a plurality of metal bodies in the resin layer and separated from each other, a dimension of each of the plurality of metal bodies in an upward-downward direction being greater than a dimension of each of the plurality of metal bodies in a direction orthogonal to the upward-downward direction and about one half of a thickness of the resin layer in the upward- downward direction; wherein at least some of the plurality of metal bodies are elastically deformable such that a portion of the at least some of the plurality of metal bodies that are in the resin layer are configured to be curved (obvious as explained and applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein the plurality of metal bodies extend between a resin-layer upper main surface and a resin-layer lower main surface of the resin layer in the upward-downward direction (see figures of Kaya, Yamaguchi, and Hotta).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure of Kaya further discloses wherein each of the plurality of metal bodies has a pillar shape extending in the upward-downward direction (see figures of Kaya, Yamaguchi, and Hotta).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sado (US 4,402,564), figure 4-5, discloses an interposer formed of elastic material (2, 3) with connecting material (1a) curved in the middle.
Yamazaki (US 5, 403,194), figure 2, discloses an interposer comprising rubbery elastomer (column 3, line 9-39) with connecting material (gold wire, 1) curved in the center.
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 ISHWARBHAI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 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, 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.
/ISHWARBHAI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
IBP / September 12, 2025