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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Rathburn, FIGs. 4A-4B and paragraphs [0028] and [0030], teaches the
sub-assemblies 402, 404, 406, 408 are heated to soften the bond layer 412, 414. The bond layer 412, 414 may be an adhesive film commonly used for printed circuit board fabrication, or a cast liquid or a fuse-able dielectric like LCP. The bond layer 412, 414 is then cooled and allowed to harden with the sub-assemblies pressed together to bond the sub-assemblies together. In order to maintain the shape of the stud bump 302 to have a width of the second portion greater than a width of the third portion during the heating, people having ordinary skills in the art would consider selecting the material of the stud bump having a melting point higher than the melting point of the bond layer 412, 414. Generally, the LCP material has the melting point around 330 Celsius, and the melting point of the solder ball (such as SAC305) may be around 217 to 218 Celsius. If people having ordinary skills in the art
construct Rathburn's circuit board structure with Bihler's stud bump made of a solder ball, during the heating process to soften the bond layer 412, 414, the stud bump may be reflowed and the shape of the stud bump cannot be maintained. Therefore, Applicant alleges that the modification of Rathburn’s circuit board with Bihler’s solder ball would destroy the principle operation of Rathburn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s analysis and conclusion.
Rathburn, [0028], recites: “The bond layer can be disposed of any material suitable for bonding sub-assemblies during lamination, such as an adhesive film commonly used for printed circuit fabrication, or a cast liquid, or a fuse-able dielectric like LCP.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Rathburn teaches the bond layer can be any common adhesive film used for a printed circuit board, such as a cast liquid (Flame Retardant FR-4) or LCP. Stated differently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Rathburn’s bond layer is not limited or required to be constructed from LCP, which, according to Applicant’s arguments, has a melting point around 330 Celsius. The Examiner respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill would understand that Rathburn’s bond layer can be constructed from a cast liquid or Flame Retardant FR-4 which has a melting point of around 150-203 Celsius.
Applicant concedes that “people having ordinary skills in the art would consider selecting the material of the stud bump having a melting point higher than the melting point of the bond layer 412, 414.” (Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/2026, page 6, middle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have selected Rathburn’s bond layer to be constructed from a cast liquid or Flame Retardant FR-4 which has a melting point of around 150-203 Celsius. Applicant establishes that the solder ball has a melting temperature of around 217-218 Celsius (Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/2026, page 6, bottom). Accordingly, Bihler's stud bump made of a solder ball has a higher melting temperature than Rathburn’s bond layer constructed from a cast liquid or Flame Retardant FR-4. Thus, the modification of Rathburn’s circuit board with Bihler’s solder ball does not destroy the principle operation of Rathburn.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Rathburn” (US 2023/0041747) in view of “Bihler” (US 2021/0098416) and “Hu” (US 2006/0225917).
Regarding claim 1, Rathburn discloses 1. A circuit board structure, comprising: a line portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the conductive layer 108 of Fig. 1 is a line portion);
a first insulating layer, disposed on the line portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the bond layer 414 of Fig. 4B is disposed on the conductive layer 108);
and a conductive terminal, disposed on the first insulating layer and embedded in the first insulating layer to be electrically connected with the line portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], [0022], [0024]-[0029]; the combined structure of the conductive layer 106 and the stud bump 302 is made of gold or copper and is a conductive terminal, disposed on and embedded in the bond layer 414 to be electrically connected with the conductive layer 108),
wherein the conductive terminal comprises:
a first portion, protruding from a surface of the first insulating layer (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the conductive layer 106 protrudes from a surface of the bond layer 414);
a second portion, embedded in the first insulating layer and connected to the first portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the top portion of the stud bump 302 is a second portion, embedded in the bond layer 414 and connected to the conductive layer 106);
and a third portion, disposed between the line portion and the second portion, wherein a width of the second portion is greater than a width of the third portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the middle portion of the stud bump 302 is a third portion, disposed between the conductive layer 108 and the second portion, wherein a width of the second portion is greater than a width of the third portion).
Rathburn does not disclose the conductive terminal is a solder ball and a first portion having a convex surface.
Bihler discloses a conductive terminal is a solder ball ([0026] a conductive terminal is a stud bump made of gold, copper or a solder ball made of tin solder).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Rathburn’s circuit board structure with Bihler’s stud bump made of a solder ball in order to reduce costs, since a stud bump that is made from a tin solder ball is less expensive than a stud bump that is made from gold or copper.
Hu discloses a first portion having a convex surface (Fig. 1, [0004] the metal bump 11 has a convex surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Rathburn’s circuit board structure, as modified by Bihler, with Hu’s first portion having a convex surface in order to ensure the electrical connection integrity and reliability, as suggested by Hu at [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Rathburn discloses 2. The circuit board structure according to claim 1, wherein the third portion has a first width on a side close to the line portion, the third portion has a second width on a side away from the line portion, and the first width is greater than the second width (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the middle portion of the stud bump 302 is a third portion which has a first width on a side close to the conductive layer 108, the third portion has a second width on a side away from the conductive layer 108, and the first width is greater than the second width).
Regarding claim 3, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2, above.
Rathburn discloses 3. The circuit board structure according to claim 2, further comprises: a conductive connecting member, disposed between the third portion and the line portion (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the bottom portion of the stud bump 302 is a conductive connecting member, disposed between the third portion and the conductive layer 108).
Regarding claim 4, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Rathburn discloses 4. The circuit board structure according to claim 3, wherein a side of the conductive connecting member in contact with the third portion has a third width, a side of the conductive connecting member in contact with the line portion has a fourth width, and the fourth width is greater than the third width (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; a side of the conductive connecting member in contact with the third portion has a third width, a side of the conductive connecting member in contact with the line portion has a fourth width, and the fourth width is greater than the third width).
Regarding claim 5, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4, above.
Rathburn discloses 5. The circuit board structure according to claim 4, wherein the third width is equal to the first width (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the third width is equal to the first width).
Regarding claim 6, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Rathburn discloses 6. The circuit board structure according to claim 3, wherein an included angle between a side wall of the third portion and a top surface of the conductive connecting member is between 30 degrees and 85 degrees (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; an included angle between a side wall of the third portion and a top surface of the conductive connecting member is between 30 degrees and 85 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Rathburn in view of Bihler and Hu discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Rathburn discloses 7. The circuit board structure according to claim 1, further comprising a carrier, wherein the line portion is disposed on the carrier (Figs. 1, 3H, 4B, [0018]-[0020], 0024]-[0029]; the non-conductive layer 112 is a carrier, wherein the conductive layer 108 is disposed on the non-conductive layer 112).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847