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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two groups of claims subject to restriction (Groups I and II) are closely related and that a proper search of any of the claims of one group would likely include a search of the claims of the other group; thus, the claims can be searched simultaneously and has a duplicative search with possibly inconsistent results may occur if the restriction requirement is maintained.
This is not found persuasive because since the inventions of Group I and II drawn to distinct inventions (a device/product and method), the determination of patentability of inventions of Group I and II would require different searches in different classes and subclasses which will be a serious burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2022/0068663 A1).
Pertaining to claim 1, Huang et al. discloses A package substrate (see fig. 2A, comprising: an insulating layer (200, see fig. 2A-1), wherein a groove (S and V, see fig. 2A-1 and 4A) is formed on a side of the insulating layer (200); a circuit layer (201, see fig. 2A-1)embedded on another side of the insulating layer (another side of Insulating layer 200); at least one conductive pillar (211, see fig. 2A-1) embedded in the insulating layer (200) to connect to the circuit layer (201); and a routing layer (the wiring portion 21b, see fig. (fig. 2A-1) formed in the groove (where S is located in Fig. 2A-1) to connect to the conductive pillar (211).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2022/0068663 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0200382 A1).
Pertaining to claim 2, Huang et al. discloses all claim limitations except an alignment portion disposed on the insulating layer and covering the routing layer.
However, Lee et al. discloses an alignment portion disposed on the insulating layer and covering the routing layer, (see paragraph [0164]).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alignment portion disposed on the insulating layer and covering the routing layer in the device of Huang et al. in order to enhances structural reliability by reducing interfacial delamination and improves process control during manufacturing.
Pertaining to claim 3, Huang et al. discloses all claim limitations except, wherein the alignment portion and the routing layer are integrally formed.
However, It would have been on obvious matter of design choice to wherein the alignment portion and the routing layer are integrally formed, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2022/0068663 A1) in view of Sakai (US 2018/0019196 A1).
Pertaining to claim 4, Huang et al. discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the routing layer is flush with a surface of the insulating layer.
However, Sakai discloses wherein the routing layer is flush with a surface of the insulating layer, see paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alignment portion disposed on the insulating layer and covering the routing layer in the device of Huang et al. in order to provide high-performance and miniaturized electronic devices. The primary benefits include superior electrical performance, higher connection density, improved mechanical stability, and enhanced thermal management.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takenaka (US 20090242261-A1) and Suzuki (US 20160064319-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848