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 .
Priority
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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 8 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1 - Figure 1 shows how the insulating filler (1) is surrounded by resin (5) and metal (3);
Species 2 - Figures 3 and 5 shows how the insulating filler (1) is surrounded by metal layer (3) alone.
The species are independent or distinct because the resin either touches the filler or it does not. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicants have constructively elected the structure of Figure 1 which reads on claims 1-7 and claim 8 has been added reads on the species of Figures 3 and 5.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 in a measurement of the average resin thickness, the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer is the filler partially in direct contact with the metal". The limitations for the contact and the average resin thickness can be found in the claim 1 when it states “at least a part of the insulating filler present in the surface of the insulating layer and the metal constituting the metal layer, the filler is partially in direct contact with the metal” and claim 5 when it states “the average resin thickness is measured where the resin is present”. 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.
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) 1-6 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 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 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 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 the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazuhiro Yoshida (US-20230250256-A1), Jong Sik Lee (US-10932362-B2), Tadashi Nomura (US-20200375022-A1), Nobuhiro Goto (US-20110223383-A1), Nobuhiko Matsumoto, (US-20220203651-A1), Tomoo Nishiyama (US-20140079913-A1), Takashi Syoujiguchi (US-20130177739-A1), Yoji Asahi (US-20070131243-A1), Keisuke Shiota (US-20230282387-A1), Tatsushi Hayashi (US-20200032059-A1), Shuichi Ito (US-20180090271-A1), Keiichi Hasebe (US-20160125971-A1), Yasunori Kin (US-6051285-A), Kazuyuki Ohya (US-5686172-A), Yoshinori Matsuura (US-20220223456-A1), Yoshihiro Hasegawa (US-20220159844-A1), Tatsuya Arisawa (US-20210014967-A1), Hisashi Tahara (US-20080144324-A1), Seiji Ichiyanagi (US-20100300740-A1), Hiroshi
Yamamoto (US-20070030628-A1), Seung Hyun Suwon Sohn (US 20090314419 A1), Katsura Hayashi (US 20150305154).
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 /J.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893