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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “low-modulus prepregs” & “metal foils” as described in claims 11-14, 16-18 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 11-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amagi et al. (US Patent 6492008) in view of Tagashira (US PG. Pub. 2023/0156905) and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG. Pub. 2014/0080940).
Regarding claim 11 – Amagi teaches a laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils (fig. 3 [title] Amagi states, “multilayer printed wiring board”), which comprises one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs (3 [column 3 & 7 lines 19-21 & 52-55] Amagi states, “Circuit patterns are formed on a cured laminated board formed of the obtained prepreg and copper films…the sheet of prepreg using the quartz glass cloth is put between the copper film 10 having a weight of 1/2 ounce per 1 m.sup.2 and the copper film 11 having a weight of 1 ounce per 1 m.sup.2”), and a metal foil (10/11) which is coated on one side (top side) of the one (3) or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs or metal foils (10/11) having different thicknesses ([Abstract] Amagi states, “The thicknesses and the covering ratios on the both sides of the electric conductor layer composing the multilayer printed wiring board are asymmetric with respect to the central plane”) which are coated on both sides (top and bottom of prepreg 3) of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs (see fig. 3); wherein a modulus of elasticity of the cured low-modulus prepreg is less than or equal to 22 GPa ([table 1 & column 7 lines 59-61] Amagi states, “elasticity (GPa)…E2…Composite 20…composite material layer 3 of the quartz glass cloth impregnated with the resin”).
Amagi does not teach wherein in a case where both sides of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs are coated with metal foils, the metal foils on both sides of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs have a thickness difference of more than or equal to 70 um, and wherein the cured low-modulus prepreg has a Tg of more than or equal to 150°C.
Tagashira teaches a laminate (figs. 1-2, 10) coated with asymmetric metal foils (12 & 20), wherein in a case where both sides of the one or at least two stacked cured prepregs (11 [paragraph 0033] Tagashira states, “The resin material constituting the insulating layer 11 is not limited to a specific type, but examples thereof include a thermosetting resin, such as an epoxy resin”) are coated with metal foils (12 & 20 [paragraph 0023] Tagashira states, “metal substrate 12…circuit pattern 20”), the metal foils on both sides of the one or at least two stacked cured prepregs (11) have a thickness difference of more than or equal to 70 um ([paragraph 0030 & 0039] Tagashira states, “the thickness T1 of the metal substrate 12 is, for example, 0.1 mm or more…the thickness T3 of the circuit pattern 20 is, for example, 0.3 mm or more”; the difference between .3mm and .1mm is 200um which meets the claimed thickness difference between the metal foils).
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 laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils on opposite sides of a cured low-modulus prepreg as taught by Amagi with the metal foils having a thickness difference between each other of 70um or more as taught by Tagashira because Tagashira states, “According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a technique of enhancing heat radiation properties in a circuit board having a heat radiation function” [paragraph 0012]. Additionally, these thickness ranges (given for upper and lower metal foil) will improve workability in routing or cutting (Tagashira [paragraphs 0029 & 0039]).
Lee teaches wherein the cured low-modulus prepreg (fig. 1, 10 [paragraph 0038 & table 1] Lee states, “a prepreg 10…Tensile Modulus (GPa 11.1)”) has a Tg of more than or equal to 150C ([table 1] Lee states, “Example 1…Glass Transition Temperature 230”).
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 laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils with both sides of a prepreg coated with metal foils as taught by Amagi in view of Tagashira with the cured low-modulus prepreg having a Tg of more than or equal to 150C as taught by Lee because Lee states, “In order to minimize warpage occurring due to reflow in a procedure of mounting electronic and electric devices, a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), a high glass transition temperature (Tg), and a high modulus are required” [paragraph 0006].
Regarding claim 12 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils according to claim 11, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the cured low-modulus prepreg (Amagi; fig. 3, 3) is less than or equal to 20 GPa ([table 1 & column 7 lines 59-61] Amagi states, “elasticity (GPa)…E2…Composite 20…composite material layer 3 of the quartz glass cloth impregnated with the resin”).
Regarding claim 13 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils according to claim 11, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the cured low-modulus prepreg (Amagi; fig. 3, 3) is more than or equal to 5 GPa ([table 1 & column 7 lines 59-61] Amagi states, “elasticity (GPa)…E2…Composite 20…composite material layer 3 of the quartz glass cloth impregnated with the resin”).
Regarding claim 14 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils according to claim 11, wherein an XY-CTE of the cured low-modulus prepreg (Amagi; fig. 3, 3) is less than or equal to 18 ppm/°C ([table 1 & column 7 lines 59-61] Amagi states, “thermal expansion (10^ 6/C…Composite…a2…11…composite material layer 3 of the quartz glass cloth impregnated with the resin”; 10^-6/C = ppm/C therefore table 1 shows 11 ppm/C).
Regarding claim 16 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teaches the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils according to claim 11, wherein both sides of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs (Amagi; figs. 3 & 5, 3) are coated with metal foils (10 & 2/11), a thickness of the metal foil (2/11 [column 6 lines 1-2] Amagi states, “the reference character 2 is an electric power supply wiring conductor made of copper”) coated on one side (bottom side) of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs (3) is less than or equal to 35 µm ([column 6 lines 33-35] Amagi states, “the electric power supply wiring conductor has a covering ratio of about 68% and a thickness of about 0.035 mm”), and a thickness of the metal foil (Tagashira; fig. 2, 12) coated on the other side is more than or equal to 105 µm ([paragraph 0030] Tagashira states, “the thickness T1 of the metal substrate 12 is, for example, 0.1 mm or more, preferably 0.5 mm or more, and more preferably 1.0 mm or more. The metal substrate 12 having the lower limit value or more is used, so that the heat radiation properties of the heat radiating substrate 10 as a whole can be improved”).
Regarding claim 17 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils according to claim 11, wherein a thickness of the metal foil (figs. 3 & 5, 2/11 [column 6 lines 1-2] Amagi states, “the reference character 2 is an electric power supply wiring conductor made of copper”) coated on one side (bottom side) of the cured low-modulus prepreg (3) is less than or equal to 35 µm ([column 6 lines 33-35] Amagi states, “the electric power supply wiring conductor has a covering ratio of about 68% and a thickness of about 0.035 mm”), and a thickness of the metal foil (Tagashira; fig. 2, 12) coated on the other side is 105-420 µm ([paragraph 0030] Tagashira states, “the thickness T1 of the metal substrate 12 is, for example, 0.1 mm or more, preferably 0.5 mm or more, and more preferably 1.0 mm or more. The metal substrate 12 having the lower limit value or more is used, so that the heat radiation properties of the heat radiating substrate 10 as a whole can be improved”; range of 0.1-1.00 mm encompasses the claimed range of 105-420um).
Regarding claim 18 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach the laminate coated with asymmetric metal foils (Amagi; figs. 2-3) according to claim 11, wherein one side of the one or at least two stacked cured low-modulus prepregs (3) is coated with a metal foil (10 & 1), and the metal foil has a thickness of 1.5-700 um ([column 6 lines 29-31] Amagi states, “signal wiring conductor 1 and the second signal wiring conductor 4 each have a covering ratio of about 15% and a thickness of about 0.048 mm”).
Regarding claim 20 – Amagi in view of Tagashira and Lee teach a printed circuit board (Amagi; fig. 3 [title] Amagi states, “multilayer printed wiring board”), wherein the printed circuit board comprises at least one laminate (fig. 3, 3) coated with asymmetric metal foils (10/11) according to claim 11 ([column 7 lines 52-55] Amagi states, “the copper film 10 having a weight of 1/2 ounce per 1 m.sup.2 and the copper film 11 having a weight of 1 ounce per 1 m.sup.2”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-14, 16-18 and 20 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
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 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