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
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/17/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the traversal of claim 8 are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that claim 8 reads on Fig. 1 of the specifications because applicant wants to define the surface of the insulating layer as only a portion of the surface instead of the complete surface. There is not enough information within the claim language that would result in a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the conclusion that the surface is not the whole surface and instead only a portion of the surface. The claim language as it stands suggests instead that the surface (being whole and complete by interpretation of plain language) of the insulating layer is in direct contact with the metal. Examiner maintains that the argument is unpersuasive even in light of applicant denoting Fig 3 and Fig 5 as prior art due to the restriction being an election of original presentation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 are moot and due to amendment claim 7 will receive new grounds of rejection
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1-6 and unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation “wherein a relationship between the resin and a width of a portion of the insulating filler in which the insulating filler is in direct contact with the metal layer is: (an average resin thickness x 2) > (the width of a portion in which the insulating filler is in direct contact with the metal layer)” was not fully rendered obvious. Li the reference relied on previously to teach the above limitation states
“In addition, due to the particle size of the boron nitride agglomerates 22,boron nitride agglomerates 22 in at least a portion may protrude from the surface of the insulating layer 20. Therefore, the first metal layer 10 and second metal layer 20 easy to be torn, the insulating layer 20 and the first metal layer 10, second metal layer 20 between weak bonding strength, and because the insulating surface part of the step-shaped layer 20, it is difficult to the mounting member.”
Or using (US 10932362 B2) as the English translation it states
“ In addition, due to a particle size of the boron nitride agglomerate 22, at least some of the boron nitride agglomerates 22 may protrude from a surface of the insulating layer 20. Accordingly, the first metal layer 10 and the second metal layer 20 are easily torn, bond strengths between the insulating layer 20 and the first and second metal layers 10 and 20 are weak and due to a stepped surface portion of the insulating layer 20, it is difficult to mount components.”
Li does teach that the surface texture is a result effective variable for bond strength. The applicant’s limitation above is a numerical way of expressing surface texture and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention optimize the surface texture to result in the best bond strength as described in Li (see Li specification).
The use of the figures in the rejection serves a mere supporting role for the information provided in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this case claim 7 depends on claim 5 which further depends on claim 1. Claim 7 states “The board according to claim 5, wherein: the average resin thickness is measured within the resin, the resin being located between the insulating filler and the metal; and the insulating filler being partially in direct contact with the metal.”
The limitation the average resin thickness is measured within the resin can be found in claim 5 where it states “the average resin thickness is measured where the resin is present”
The limitation the resin being located between the insulating filler and the metal; and the insulating filler being partially in direct contact with the metal can be found in claim 1 where it states “the resin is present partially between at least a part of the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer and a metal constituting the metal layer,… the insulating filler is partially in direct contact with the metal”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2022-30289A, using US Pub No. US 2022/0046795) in view of Zong-shi Li et al. (CN 111279802 A) hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding Claim 1, Ikeda teaches A board comprising:
an insulating layer (41) that contains a resin containing an insulating filler (5) ; and
a metal layer (3a) disposed on a surface of the insulating layer,
wherein the resin is present partially between at least a part of the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer and a metal constituting the metal layer, (Fig. 2 and 3),
wherein in at least a part of the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer and the metal constituting the metal layer, the insulating filler is partially in direct contact with the metal, (Fig. 2 and 3) and
wherein in an interface between the insulating layer and the metal layer, a depth of the metal present at a deepest portion in the insulating layer is 1.2 μm or less based on the resin or the insulating filler present in an outermost surface of the insulating layer.(Para. [0052]-[0053])
Ikeda does not teach:
wherein a relationship between the resin and a width of a portion of the insulating filler in which the insulating filler is in direct contact with the metal layer is: (an average resin thickness x 2) > (the width of a portion in which the insulating filler is in direct contact with the metal layer); and
Li teaches that, to improve interfacial performance, the relationship between the resin and the width of a portion of the insulating filler in which the insulating filler is in direct contact with the metal layer. Li (figures and accompanying description) conveys the design principle that, for similar resin/filler–metal interfaces, resin coverage at the interface should predominate and the lateral extent of direct filler–metal contact should be limited in order to balance adhesion with dielectric reliability and to reduce leakage/corrosion paths.
In Fig. 2 where element 20 is the resin, 22 is the filler and 30 is metal, and the Background you can see visually the average resin thickness is quite large compared to the connection of the filler to the metal described in the spec and in the drawing.
Although Li’s disclosure does not provide the claimed numeric inequality verbatim, Li’s qualitative teaching that resin coverage should exceed the lateral contact region would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply such guidance to Ikeda’s structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
130
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
395
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The ratio between average resin thickness and the lateral width of direct filler–metal contact is a result-effective parameter influencing adhesion, leakage, and corrosion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device to routinely optimized this parameter in Ikeda’s structure (by adjusting resin formulation/viscosity, lamination pressure/speed, filler exposure/particle size, and plating conditions) to achieve the known goals identified in Ikeda and Li. Selecting a conservative margin such as ensuring that (average resin thickness × 2) exceeds the width of direct contact is a predictable design choice within the ordinary skill of the art to provide process margin and reliability. Accordingly, the claimed relationship would have been obvious in view of Ikeda in combination with Li. (see background and specification.)
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda in view of Li teaches
The board according to claim 1
Ikeda further teaches:
wherein the metal layer (3a) includes one or more layers, and a layer in direct contact with the insulating layer of the metal layer is an electroless-plated layer or a dry-plated layer. (fig 2 Para [0039])
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda in view of Li teaches:
The board according to claim 1,
Ikeda further teaches:
wherein the insulating layer is a layer obtained by performing a laser ablation on a surface of the resin containing the insulating filler. (Para. [0058]-[0060])
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda in view of Li teaches:
The board according to claim 3,
Ikeda further teaches:
wherein a laser light irradiated in the laser ablation is a laser light having a pulse width of 1 ps or less, a wavelength of 320 nm or more, and an output of 1 W or less. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda in view of Li teaches:
The board according to claim 1
Ikeda further teaches:
wherein the average resin thickness is measured where the resin is present, as a distance between the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer and the metal layer; and wherein the average resin thickness is in a range of 1.0 μm or less. (Para [0052]-[0053])
Ikeda discloses the claimed resin/filler insulating layer and metal layer and teaches limiting the depth of metal penetration at the interface to low micrometer values (see Ikeda ¶¶ [0052]–[0053]; Figs. 2–3, describing deepest metal penetration about ≤ 1.2 μm). The average resin thickness at the interface is a result-effective parameter affecting adhesion, leakage, and reliability.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to control and select an average resin thickness of ≤ 1.0 μm in Ikeda’s interface by routine process adjustments (e.g., resin formulation/viscosity, lamination pressure/temperature, filler loading/exposure control, and surface activation/plating conditions) to achieve the same reliability and adhesion objectives taught by Ikeda. Li provides qualitative guidance (and figures) supporting the desirability of resin coverage relative to filler contact width for such interfaces and thus supplies motivation to optimize interfacial resin thickness where appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Li teaches:
The board according to claim 5,
Ikeda further teaches:
wherein the average resin thickness is in a range of 0.01-0.2 μm. (Para. [0052]-[0053])
Ikeda teaches controlling interfacial metal penetration to values on the order of micrometers (see Ikeda ¶¶ [0052]–[0053]). Selecting a sub-range of average resin thickness in the sub-micron regime (e.g., 0.01–0.2 μm) would have been an obvious design choice to improve dielectric reliability and provide process margin consistent with Ikeda’s interfacial goals. A skilled artisan would have achieved such thicknesses through routine process optimization (resin dilution/viscosity, lamination conditions, filler sizing/exposure control, planarization and surface activation steps). Absent evidence showing that the specific claimed endpoints are critical or yield unexpected results, the claimed range is an obvious selection within the known design space.
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 JAIME LYNN SPRENGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30a.m. - 5:00p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/JAIME LYNN SPRENGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights