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 “first surface” 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1, 3, 15, 17, 19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funahashi et al. (US 2016/0007447) [Hereinafter Funahashi].
Regarding claim 1, Funahashi teaches An electronic element mounting board comprising:
a bottom portion [fig. 8, base section 2b, para 26] including a mounting surface [fig 8; top surface of base section 2b] on which an electronic element [fig. 8, electronic device 11, para 25] is mounted;
a side portion [annotated fig. 8] positioned surrounding the mounting surface of the bottom portion, and including
a first surface [annotated fig. 8] located on a side of the mounting surface and
a recessed portion surface recessed from the first surface [annotated fig. 8]; and
a conductor [fig. 8, conductor 4, para 26] forming a part of the side portion and including an outer surface located on the recessed portion surface [annotated fig. 8].
PNG
media_image1.png
765
1451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FUNAHASHI, ANNOTATED FIG. 8
Regarding claim 3, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 1,
wherein the recessed portion surface extends in a direction from the bottom portion toward a top portion of the side portion [annotated fig. 8].
Regarding claim 15, Funahashi teaches the electronic element mounting board according to claim 1, further comprising:
an upper electrode [annotated fig. 8] positioned at the top portion of the side portion; and
a lower electrode [annotated fig. 8] positioned, on the bottom portion, overlapping the upper electrode [annotated fig. 8] and electrically connected to the upper electrode via the conductor in a plan view of the mounting surface [annotated fig. 8; “The wiring conductor 5 includes an internal wiring 5 a electrically connected to the first conductor 4, a through conductor 5 b penetrating the base portion 2 b in the thickness direction and electrically connected to the internal wiring 5 a, a through conductor 5 b electrically connected to the internal wiring 5 a And an external terminal 5 c provided on the lower surface and electrically connected to the through conductor 5 b.”].
Regarding claim 17, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 15,
wherein, in a plan view of the mounting surface, the lower electrode is exposed on the bottom portion on a side of the mounting surface relative to the side portion [annotated fig. 8].
Regarding claim 19, Funahashi teaches An electronic component comprising:
the electronic element mounting board described in claim15;
the electronic element (fig. 8, 11) located on the mounting surface (annotated fig. 8); and
a plurality of connection members [fig. 8, bonding wire 11a, “The electronic element 11 is electrically connected to the electrode pad 3 via a connecting member such as a bonding wire 11 a.”],
wherein each of a plurality of the upper electrodes [annotated fig. 8] is electrically connected to the electronic element (fig. 8, 11) via the connection member (fig. 8, 11a).
Regarding claim 21, Funahashi teaches An electronic apparatus comprising the electronic component described in claim 19 [Funahashi teaches the electronic component of claim 19 as disclosed above in the claim 19 rejection].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funahashi.
Regarding claim 2, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 1, further comprising:
a coating film [fig. 8, adhesive 13, para 108] covering the outer surface [annotated fig. 8],
wherein an optical reflectance of the coating film is lower than an optical reflectance of the conductor [para 108 states, “the adhesive 13 is an insulating resin adhesive or the like. Furthermore para 28 list exemplary insulating resins “. . .fluorine-base resin (plastics) including epoxy resin, polyimide resin, acrylic resin, phenol resin, polyester resin, or tetrafluoroethylene resin.” Moreover, para 43 states exemplary materials for the conductor, “copper, gold, aluminum, nickel, chromium, molybdenum or titanium”. All metal materials listed carry a higher optical reflectance than the exemplary insulating resin adhesives disclosed in the prior art].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the coating layer to have lower reflectance than the conductor layer inherently based on the exemplary materials taught by Funahashi to minimize glare and unwanted light reflection.
Claim(s) 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funahashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 19, & 21 and further in view of Shimizu (JP2001237551A) [hereinafter Shimzu].
Regarding claim 4, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 3.
Funahashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface, the outer surface comprises a part of the recessed portion surface.
However Shimizu teaches wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface [fig. 4, top surface of the bottom portion 1d, para 14] the outer surface comprises a part of the recessed portion surface [fig. 4, conductors 4a/4b which form a part of the side portion have an outer surface at concave portion).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cross section along the mounting surface, the outer surface comprise part of the recessed portion surface to improve structural integrity and enhance thermal management.
Regarding claim 5, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 4,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface (Shimizu, fig. 1/3, 1d), the outer surface is located away from the first surface [Shimizu, fig. 1/3; illustrates the outer surface of the conductor located at a concave portion surface is located a distance away from the first surface (1e )].
Regarding claim 6, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 5,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface (Shimizu, fig. 1/3, 1d), the conductor [Shimizu, fig 1/3, 4a/4b, para 15] is located in a region of the side portion away from the first surface [Shimizu, fig. 1; illustrates the conductor located on a side portion away from the first surface (1e).]
Regarding claim 7, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 6,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface (Shimizu, fig. 1/3, 1d), both end portions of the conductor (Shimizu, fig. 1/3,4a/4b) located on a side of the first surface (Shimizu, fig. 1/3, 1e), are located on the recessed portion surface [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 6,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface, both end portions of the conductor (Shimizu, fig. 1, 4a/4b), located on a side of the first surface (Shimizu, fig. 1, 1e), are located on an inner side of the side portion (Shimizu, fig. 1, surface 1a, para 15) relative to the recessed portion surface (fig. 1, recesses 1f).
Regarding claim 9, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 3,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface (Shimizu, fig. 1, 1d) the outer surface has a curved shape [Shimizu, fig. 1; wherein the outer surface of the conductor 4a/4b has a curved shape].
Regarding claim 10, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 3,
wherein, in a cross section along the mounting surface [Funahashi, fig. 1/3, top surface of 2b], the outer surface has a linear shape [Funahashi, fig. 1/3; wherein the outer surface of the conductors are linear].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funahashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 19, & 21 and further in view of Fukushige et al. (WO 2019/017441).
Regarding claim 11, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 3.
Funahashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the conductor from the outer surface is different between two cross sections parallel to the mounting surface.
However, Fukushige teaches wherein a thickness of the conductor [fig. 4, connecting conductor 111] from the outer surface is different between two cross sections parallel to the mounting surface [“the thickness of the connecting conductor 111 is increased from the side opposed to the wiring conductor 116 to the wiring conductor 116 in such a manner that the thickness gradually increases towards the side of the side 116. With such a structure, it is possible to reduce the possibility of disconnection or deterioration of conductivity . . . .”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the conductor thickness to vary to reduce the possibility of disconnection or deterioration of conductivity.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funahashi as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 19, & 21 and further in view of Kameda et al. (US 2002/0163787).
Regarding claim 16, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 15.
Funahashi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the upper electrode and the lower electrode have an identical maximum width along the first surface.
However, Kameda teaches wherein the upper electrode [fig. 3, top surface electrodes 2a/3a, para 35] and the lower electrode [fig. 3, bottom surface electrodes 2b/3b, para 35] have an identical maximum width along the first surface [para 35, “The top-surface electrodes 2a and 3a and the bottom-surface electrodes 2b and 3b have the same width”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper and lower electrode to have identical widths to ensure uniform current distribution avoiding edge effects which can occur with asymmetrical designs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, & 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, Funahashi/Shimizu teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 11,
wherein the side portion (Shimizu, fig. 1, 1a) includes a plurality of layered side portion layers [para 14 states, “The multilayer substrate 1 made of a mother substrate has a plurality of insulating thin plates”], and
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the plurality of side portion layers is different from at least one of other side portion layers in terms of a position in a direction parallel to the mounting surface.
Thereby claim 12 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 3.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the recessed portion surface includes a first recessed portion side surface and
a second recessed portion side surface,
each of which being located up to the first surface, and
a recessed portion connection surface connecting the first recessed portion side surface and the second recessed portion side surface, and
the recessed portion connection surface includes a first curved surface region connected to the first recessed portion side surface and
a second curved surface region connected to the second recessed portion side surface.
Thereby claim 13 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, Funahashi teaches The electronic element mounting board according to claim 15.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer surface has a curved shape in a cross section along the mounting surface, and
an outer shape of the lower electrode is a curved shape in a plan view of the mounting surface.
Thereby claim 18 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812