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 .
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) 12-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US PG. Pub. 2009/0166073) in view of Testino (US PG. Pub. 2013/0126222) and further in view of Chakravorty et al. (US Patent 6775150).
Regarding claim 12 – Jeong teaches a combination package (fig. 1G) comprising: a ceramic base (see lower ceramic layer 20 [paragraph 0036] Jeong states, “high temperature ceramic substrate 20 may be provided through a typical HTCC process”) comprising a first material ([paragraph 0037] Jeong states, “The high temperature ceramic substrate 20 is produced by sintering a sheet formed of alumina and the like at a high temperature of about 1500.degree. C. or more”) having a first melting point; and at least one layer (10 [paragraph 0074] Jeong states, “lower temperature ceramic substrate 10 is prepared, which may be a substrate manufactured by a typical LTCC method”) on the ceramic base (the one layer 10 is shown to be “on” the upper and lower ceramic layers 20), the at least one layer (10) comprising a second material (LTCC material) having a second melting point ([paragraph 0005] Jeong states, “a Low Temperature Co-fired Ceramic (LTCC) substrate, which is fired at a low temperature of about 1000.degree. C. or less”) lower than the first melting point of the first material (The LTCC material of layer 10 will have a lower melting point than that of the HTCC of layer 20).
Jeong fails to teach wherein the layer is an inkjet printed layer and wherein the ceramic base is a multilayer ceramic base.
Testino teaches a layer (fig. 3, 2 [paragraph 0039] Testino states, “The first ceramic layer 2 comprises a first ceramic material 3 which is applied on a first surface partition 5 of the ceramic substrate 1 and a second ceramic material 4 which is applied on a second surface partition 6 of the ceramic substrate 1”) that is an inkjet printed layer ([paragraph 0039] Testino states, “the first and the second ceramic materials 3, 4 are applied by a first and second inkjet printing step”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package having a layer with a lower melting point than that of a multilayer ceramic base as taught by Jeong with the layer being an inkjet printed layer as taught by Testino because Testino states, “Such very small dimensions of the diameter and thickness of the first ceramic material can be advantageously achieved by inkjet printing” [paragraph 0020].
Chakravorty teaches a multilayer ceramic base (fig. 3, 90 [column 5 lines 18-19] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90, in one embodiment, comprises a plurality of ceramic layers 91-95”) comprising a first material having the first melting point ([column line ] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90 of substrate 50 can be fabricated by conventional techniques, such as but not limited to high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) technology”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package having a ceramic base (HTCC) and one inkjet printed layer (LTCC) thereon as taught by Jeong in view of Testino with the ceramic base being a multilayer ceramic base (HTCC) as taught by Chakravorty because Chakravorty states, “because the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the ceramic portion is close to that of the die, the use of the ceramic portion helps minimize thermal-induced mechanical stress in the die” [column 3 lines 20-23]. The additional plurality of ceramic base layers will increase the overall rigidity/strength and prevent warpage/stress of the combination package.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given significant patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. “at least one layer”, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. “inkjet printed”. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 13 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 12, wherein the at least one inkjet printed layer (Testino; fig. 1, 2) comprises at least two different materials (barium titanate & magnesium oxide [paragraph 0047 & 0048] Testino states, “The first ceramic material 3 is applied by a first inkjet printing step as described in detail in the general part of the description above and comprises barium strontium titanate…second ceramic material 4 comprises magnesium oxide”).
Regarding claim 13 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 12, wherein the at least one layer (Jeong; fig. 1G) comprises at least two different materials (LTCC material and electrode 11 [paragraph 0048] Jeong states, “electrode formed of copper or argentum, i.e., the first electrode 11”). Testino teaches wherein the layer is an inkjet printed layer as discussed in the rejection to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 13, wherein the at least one inkjet printed layer (Testino; fig. 1, 2) comprises a first layer (3) of a first material (barium titanate as quoted in claim 13 above) and a second layer (4) of a second material (magnesium oxide as quoted in claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 15 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 13, wherein the at least one inkjet printed layer (Testino; fig. 1, 2) comprises a layer (2) having a first portion (3) and a second portion (4), the first portion (3) comprising a first material (barium titanate as quoted in claim 13 above) and the second portion (4) comprising a second material (magnesium oxide as quoted in claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 15 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 13, wherein the at least one layer (Jeong; fig. 1G) comprises a layer (fig. 1D, layer including 10/12 & 11) having a first portion (LTCC of 10/12) and a second portion (11), the first portion (10/12) comprising a first material (LTCC [paragraph 0047] Jeong states, “ceramic laminated sheets 12 are provided to form the low temperature ceramic substrate”) and the second portion (11) comprising a second material (electrode 11 [paragraph 0048] Jeong states, “electrode formed of copper or argentum, i.e., the first electrode 11”).
Regarding claim 16 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 15, wherein the first material (Jeong; fig. 1G & 1D, LTCC) of the first portion (12) comprises a dielectric material (LTCC is a dielectric material) and the second material (copper material of electrode 11) of the second portion (11) comprises a conductive material (copper is a conductive material).
Regarding claim 19 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 12, wherein the first material (Jeong; fig. 1G, material of layer 20) is a High-Temperature Co-fired Ceramic (HTCC) material ([paragraph 0037] Jeong states, “The high temperature ceramic substrate 20 is produced by sintering a sheet formed of alumina and the like at a high temperature of about 1500.degree. C. or more”), and the second material (material of layer 10/12) is a Low-Temperature Co-fired Ceramic (LTCC) material ([paragraph 0074] Jeong states, “lower temperature ceramic substrate 10 is prepared, which may be a substrate manufactured by a typical LTCC method”).
Regarding claim 20 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 12, wherein the at least one inkjet printed layer (Testino; fig. 1, 2) comprises an island structure (figure 1 show the “inject printed layer” 2 comprised of elements 3 & 4 being distinct elements and are considered “island structures”).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (US PG. Pub. 2009/0114434).
Regarding claim 23 – Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 12, and at least one inkjet printed layer (Testino; fig. 1, 2) but fails to teach further comprising: ceramic paste printed between the multilayer ceramic base and the at least one printed layer.
Ko teaches a combination package (figs. 3E-3F, 100 [paragraph 0031] Ko states, “ceramic laminate 100”) further comprising: ceramic paste (104 [paragraph 0031] Ko states, “ceramic paste 104”) printed between the multilayer ceramic base (see structure below ceramic paste 104) and the at least one printed layer (105 [paragraph 0031] Ko states, “surface electrode 105”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package having a multilayer ceramic base with at least one inkjet printed layer thereon as taught by Jeong in view of Testino and Chakravorty with the inclusion of a ceramic paste between the printed layer and the multilayer ceramic base as taught by Ko because Ko states, “As the ceramic paste 104 is crystallized, a good adhesion between the ceramic paste 104 and the surface electrode 105 is obtained…and a secondary firing process is performed, such that adhesion between the ceramic paste and the surface electrode can be increased” [paragraph 0054 & 0055].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Chakravorty et al.
Regarding claim 25 – Jeong teaches a combination package (fig. 1G) comprising: a ceramic base (lower ceramic layer 20 [paragraph 0036] Jeong states, “high temperature ceramic substrate 20 may be provided through a typical HTCC process”) comprising a fired ceramic structure and a first material ([paragraph 0037] Jeong states, “The high temperature ceramic substrate 20 is produced by sintering a sheet formed of alumina and the like at a high temperature of about 1500.degree. C. or more”) having a first melting point; and at least one layer (10 [paragraph 0074] Jeong states, “lower temperature ceramic substrate 10 is prepared, which may be a substrate manufactured by a typical LTCC method”) disposed on the fired ceramic structure of the ceramic base (the one layer 10 is shown to be “on” the lower ceramic base 20), the at least one layer (10) comprising a second material (LTCC material) having a second melting point ([paragraph 0005] Jeong states, “a Low Temperature Co-fired Ceramic (LTCC) substrate, which is fired at a low temperature of about 1000.degree. C. or less”) lower than the first melting point of the first material of the ceramic base (The LTCC material of layer 10 will have a lower melting point than that of the HTCC of layer 20).
Jeong fails to teach wherein the ceramic base is a multilayer ceramic base; and the fired ceramic structure being defined prior to disposition of the at least one layer.
Chakravorty teaches a multilayer ceramic base (fig. 3, 90 [column 5 lines 18-19] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90, in one embodiment, comprises a plurality of ceramic layers 91-95”) comprising a first material having the first melting point ([column line ] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90 of substrate 50 can be fabricated by conventional techniques, such as but not limited to high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) technology”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package with one layer disposed on a fired ceramic structure of a multilayer ceramic base with different melting points between the layers as taught by Jeong with the ceramic base being a multilayer ceramic base (HTCC) as taught by Chakravorty because Chakravorty states, “because the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the ceramic portion is close to that of the die, the use of the ceramic portion helps minimize thermal-induced mechanical stress in the die” [column 3 lines 20-23]. The additional plurality of ceramic base layers will increase the overall rigidity/strength and prevent warpage/stress of the combination package.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given significant patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. “at least one layer disposed on the fired ceramic structure”, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. “the fired ceramic structure being defined prior to disposition of the at least one layer”. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Chakravorty et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US Patent 10849224).
Regarding claim 26 – Jeong in view of Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 25, but fails to teach wherein the at least one layer comprises a plurality of portions forming an island structure.
Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one layer (fig. 1, layer that includes the plurality of structures 13) comprises a plurality of portions forming an island structure (13 [column 3 lines 63-65] Hayashi states, “the protruding parts 13 are each made of a ceramic material containing alumina”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package with one layer disposed on a fired ceramic structure of a multilayer ceramic base with different melting points between the layers as taught by Jeong with the one layer comprises a plurality of portions forming an island structure as taught by Hayashi because Hayashi states, “the alumina protruding parts 13 of greater height are arranged in the vicinities of the connection pads 12. The connection pads 12 are thus made unlikely to come into contact with other parts or members so that surfaces of the connection pads 12 can be protected by the alumina protruding parts 13” [column 4 lines 22-27].
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testino in view of Chakravorty et al.
Regarding claim 27 – Testino teaches a combination package (fig 1) comprising: a ceramic base (1 [paragraph 0039] Testino states, “ceramic substrate 1”) comprising a first material ([paragraph 0044] Testino states, “ceramic substrate 1 suitable for the electrical muti-layer component, which is made of magnesium oxide”) having a first melting point (magnesium oxide has a melting point of 2852 C. see attached NPL); and at least one layer (2 [paragraph 0039] Testino states, “first ceramic layer 2”) disposed on the ceramic base (1), the at least one layer (2) comprising: a first portion (3 [paragraph 0040] Testino states, “first ceramic material 3 is barium strontium titanate”) comprising a second material (“barium strontium titanate” quoted above) having a second melting point (barium strontium titanate has a melting point of 2060 C) lower than the first melting point of the first material (barium strontium titanate (first portion 3) with a melting point of 2060 C is lower than the melting point of magnesium oxide (first material of ceramic base 1) of 2852 C), and a second portion (4) comprising a third material different from the second material ([paragraph 0040] Testino states, “The second ceramic material 4 is different from the first ceramic material 3…second ceramic material 4 is magnesium oxide”).
Testino fails to teach wherein the ceramic base is a multilayer ceramic base comprising a plurality of ceramic layers.
Chakravorty teaches a multilayer ceramic base (fig. 3, 90 [column 5 lines 18-19] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90, in one embodiment, comprises a plurality of ceramic layers 91-95”) comprising a first material having the first melting point ([column line ] Chakravorty states, “Ceramic portion 90 of substrate 50 can be fabricated by conventional techniques, such as but not limited to high temperature co-fired ceramic (HTCC) technology”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package with one layer having two different materials disposed on a ceramic base with a specific melting point difference as taught by Testino with the ceramic base being a multilayer ceramic base (HTCC) as taught by Chakravorty because Chakravorty states, “because the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the ceramic portion is close to that of the die, the use of the ceramic portion helps minimize thermal-induced mechanical stress in the die” [column 3 lines 20-23]. The additional plurality of ceramic base layers will increase the overall rigidity/strength and prevent warpage/stress of the combination package.
Regarding claim 29 – Testino in view of Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 27, wherein the first portion (Testino; fig. 1, 3) and the second portion (4) are disposed adjacent to one another within the at least one layer (2; claimed structure shown in figure 1).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testino in view of Chakravorty et al as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al.
Regarding claim 28 – Testino in view of Chakravorty teach the combination package of claim 27, but fails to teach wherein the first portion and the second portion define an island structure.
Hayashi teaches wherein at least one layer (fig. 1, layer that includes the plurality of structures 13; [column 3 lines 63-65] Hayashi states, “the protruding parts 13 are each made of a ceramic material containing alumina”) includes a first (left protruding part 13) and second portion (right protruding part 13), the first portion and the second portion define an island structure (figure 1 shows the distinct protruding parts 13 having an ”island structure”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination package with one layer disposed having a first and second portion that are different disposed on a multilayer ceramic base as taught by Testino with the one layer comprises a plurality of portions forming an island structure as taught by Hayashi because Hayashi states, “the alumina protruding parts 13 of greater height are arranged in the vicinities of the connection pads 12. The connection pads 12 are thus made unlikely to come into contact with other parts or members so that surfaces of the connection pads 12 can be protected by the alumina protruding parts 13” [column 4 lines 22-27].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Although numbered paragraph [0039] of Testino describes that first and second ceramic materials 3, 4 are applied by first and second inkjet printing steps, respectively, noticeably absent from Testino is any teaching or suggestion of printing the first and second ceramic materials 3, 4 on a multilayer ceramic base. Rather, Testino only generically describes that ceramic materials be applied by inkjet printing” [REMAKRS page 6].
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues, “Regarding the Examiner’s assertion that the limitation “inkjet printed” should not be given significant patentable weight, Applicant submits that claim 12 requires a specific structural relationship…Applicant submits that one of skill in the art would readily appreciate that inkjet printed layers would inherently have distinctive structural characteristics that would not be present in layers that were created using conventional green processes. For example, inkjet printed layer are much thinner than layers created using conventional green processes” [REMARKS page 7].
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., thinner layers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm.
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 Thompson can be reached at 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights