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. .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-01-26 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wherein the insulating layer includes: a first heat-resistant resin layer including the first surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition, a second heat-resistant resin layer including the second surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition, and
the elastic layer disposed between the first heat-resistant resin layer and the second heat-resistant resin layer.”
It is unclear in the claim if “a first/second heat-resistant resin layer” recited in the claim is different from or part of the same heat-resistant resin layer recited in claim 9. The preamble of claim 11 directs the claim to the insulating layer and establishes the first and second heat-resistant layers as separate from the heat-resistant layer of claim 9. For the purposes of compact prosecution, and since the Figures do not appear to show an embodiment as claimed in claim 11, the examiner will interpret claim 11 to read -- The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 9, wherein the heat-resistant resin layer includes: a first heat-resistant resin layer including the first surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition, a second heat-resistant resin layer including the second surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition,
wherein the elastic layer is disposed between the first heat-resistant resin layer and the second heat-resistant resin layer. --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites, ”the test object is disposed on or above the first surface” in line 3. The claim is directed toward an anisotropic conductive sheet and it is unclear if the test object is intended to be a required element of the claim or if it is merely an example of a use of the anisotropic conductive sheet. Since the claim is written such that the anisotropic conductive sheet does not comprise a test object, no patentable weight is given to the test object in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim such that if an anisotropic conductive sheet is able to connect to a test object, i.e. has the structural features of claim 14 and the claims from which claim 14 depends, it will read on the claim.
Additionally Claim 14 recites, “the anisotropic conductive sheet is used for electrical testing of a test object and the test object is disposed on or above the first surface” in lines 2-3. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph MPEP 2173.05(p). It is unclear when/if prior art would read on this limitation, if a prior art does not explicitly teach a test object, but the prior are COULD be used with a test object, i.e. it has all the features of the claimed invention, it is unclear if it MUST be testing a test object to read on this claim. Furthermore, it is unclear IF the test object would need to be disposed on or above the first surface to read on the claim. Since the claim is directed toward the anisotropic conductive sheet, the limitations directed toward the test object are not given patentable weight as described in the rejection above. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim to read -- the anisotropic conductive sheet is configured to be used for electrical testing of a test object; and the anisotropic conductive sheet is configured to allow the test object to be disposed on or above the first surface. --
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP-H07169542-A, From applicant IDS, refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi teaches an anisotropic conductive sheet, comprising:
an insulating layer (Fig 3: socket base, 1) including a first surface located on one side in a thickness direction of the insulating layer (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), a second surface located on another side in the thickness direction (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), and a plurality of through holes each extending between the first surface and the second surface (Fig 3: hole, 2);
a plurality of first conductive layers respectively disposed on inner wall surfaces of the plurality of through holes (Fig 3: conductive plating layer, 3);
a plurality of conductive fillers respectively filling cavities inside the plurality of through holes (Fig 3: contacts, 4), each of the cavities being surrounded by a corresponding one of the first conductive layers (Can be seen in Fig 3),
wherein each of the plurality of conductive fillers contains a cross-linked product of a conductive elastomer composition (Para [0040] teaches the elastomer may be silicone rubber, which is cross-linked in its production) that contains a conductive particle and an elastomer (Para [0055] teaches the conductive filler is made of an elastomer and Para [0040] teaches mixing highly conductive materials into the elastomer).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of second conductive layers disposed on or above the first surface and the second surface (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), each of the plurality of second conductive layers communicating with one or more of the first conductive layers (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi);
on or above the first surface, a plurality of first grooves disposed between the plurality of second conductive layers and configured to insulate the plurality of second conductive layers from each other (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi); and
on or above the second surface, a plurality of second grooves disposed between the plurality of second conductive layers and configured to insulate the plurality of second conductive layers from each other (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, wherein a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the conductive elastomer composition at 250C is 1 to 300 Mpa (the storage elastic modulus of silicone rubber at 250C is generally 0.1 - 5 Mpa, which is within the range).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, wherein the elastomer contained in the conductive elastomer composition is silicone rubber (Para [0040] teaches the elastomer may be silicone rubber).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, wherein a volume resistivity of the cross-linked product of the conductive elastomer composition is
10
-
2
Ω
m
or less (the volume resistivity of silicone rubber is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer contains at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and copper (Para [0016] teaches the conductive layer, 3, is made from copper).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi teaches The anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1, wherein: the anisotropic conductive sheet is used for electrical testing of a test object; and the test object is disposed on or above the first surface (Para [0001] and [0005] teach the anisotropic conductive sheet is used as a connecting medium between circuits (IC and wiring board) and therefore configured to connect to a test object on of above the first surface.).
Regarding Claim 15, Takahashi teaches A method for producing an anisotropic conductive sheet, the method comprising:
preparing an insulating layer (Fig 3: socket base, 1) including a first surface located on one side in a thickness direction of the insulating layer (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), a second surface located on another side in the thickness direction (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), and a plurality of through holes each extending between the first surface and the second surface (Fig 3: hole, 2);
forming a conductive layer continuously on inner wall surfaces of the plurality of through holes and on the first surface (Fig 3: conductive plating layer, 3);
filling insides of the plurality of through holes of the insulating layer with a conductive elastomer composition containing a conductive particle and an elastomer (Para [0055] teaches the conductive filler is made of an elastomer and Para [0040] teaches mixing highly conductive materials into the elastomer), the insulating layer being an insulating layer on which the conductive layer is formed (Can be seen in Fig 3); and
forming a plurality of first grooves on or above the first surface of the insulating layer filled with the conductive elastomer composition or with a cross-linked product of the conductive elastomer composition (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi), and dividing the conductive layer into a plurality of conductive layers (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3 of Takahashi).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Takahashi
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Okuda et al. (US-20070160808-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi does not teach the insulating layer contains a cross-linked product of an elastomer composition; and
a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the conductive elastomer composition at 250C is higher than a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the elastomer composition in the insulating layer at 25C.
However, Okuda teaches the insulating layer contains a cross-linked product of an elastomer composition (Para [0021] teaches the insulation layer, 2, is preferably a foamed fluororubber, which is crosslinked in its manufacture); and
a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the conductive elastomer composition at 250C is higher than a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the elastomer composition in the insulating layer at 25C (storage modulus of silicone rubber at 250C is typically 0.1-5 MPa and the storage modulus of foamed fluororubber is typically 0.1-10 Mpa, therefore a range exists where the modulus of the fluororubber is less than that of the silicone rubber.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the insulation layer of Takahashi to be foamed fluororubber as taught by Okuda. A motivation for this modification is foamed fluororubber is heat resistant and highly durable so that the sheet can withstand repetitive compression/decompression as taught by Okuda in Para [0021].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Gaynes et al. (US-6002177-A).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi does not teach wherein the conductive particle contains at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and copper. However, Gaynes teaches wherein the conductive particle contains at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and copper (col. 7, lines 59-65 teach conductive particles, within a mixture, containing copper, gold or silver.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the conductive particles of Takahashi to contain copper, gold or silver as taught in Gaynes. A motivation for this modification is that these three metals are well known in the art to be the best conductors.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Okuda in further view of Moon et al. (US-20140066545-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi does not teach wherein the insulating layer contains: an elastic layer containing a cross-linked product of an elastomer composition. However, Okuda teaches an elastic layer containing a cross-linked product of an elastomer composition (Para [0021] teaches the insulation layer, 2, is preferably a foamed fluororubber, which is crosslinked in its manufacture). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the insulation layer of Takahashi to be foamed fluororubber as taught by Okuda. A motivation for this modification is foamed fluororubber is heat resistant and highly durable so that the sheet can withstand repetitive compression/decompression as taught by Okuda in Para [0021].
The combination of Takahashi in view of Okuda does not teach a heat-resistant resin layer containing a heat-resistant resin composition having a higher glass transition temperature than the cross-linked product of the elastomer composition. However, Moon teaches a heat-resistant resin layer containing a heat-resistant resin composition having a higher glass transition temperature than the cross-linked product of the elastomer composition (Fig 1 shows a heat resistant resin layer, 131, and Para [0017] teaches an epoxy resin composition including a liquid crystal oligomer, the glass transition temperature of foamed fluororubber is around -20C and the glass transition temperature of resin with liquid crystal oligomer is 110C - 280C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the insulation layer of the combination, to include the heat-resistant resin layer of Moon. A motivation for this modification is to raise the glass transition temperature as taught by Moon in Para [0038].
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon, as presented with respect to claim 9, teaches wherein a storage elastic modulus of the heat-resistant resin composition at 250C is higher than a storage elastic modulus of the cross-linked product of the elastomer composition in the insulating layer at 25C (the elastic modulus of resin with liquid crystal oligomer at 250C is 3GPa - 25GPa, higher than foamed fluororubber at 0.1MPa - 10MPa). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon and in further view of Hotta et al. (US-20170125330-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon teaches a heat-resistant resin layer, and the insulation layer is elastic, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the insulating layer includes:
a first heat-resistant resin layer including the first surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition,
a second heat-resistant resin layer including the second surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition, and
the insulation layer disposed between the first heat-resistant resin layer and the second heat-resistant resin layer.
However, Hotta teaches wherein the insulating layer includes: a first heat-resistant resin layer including the first surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition (Fig 5B: pressure sensitive adhesive layer, 4 | Para [0023 - 0024] teaches an epoxy resin),
a second heat-resistant resin layer including the second surface and containing the heat-resistant resin composition (Can be seen in Fig 5B), and
the insulation layer disposed between the first heat-resistant resin layer and the second heat-resistant resin layer (Fig 5B: insulating base, 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the insulation layer of the combination to include the heat-resistant layers of Hotta. A motivation for this modification is to raise the glass transition temperature as taught by Moon in Para [0038].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon in view of Hotta and in further view of He et al. (CN-107706173-A, refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon in view of Hotta does not teach a depth of the first groove is more than a thickness of the first heat-resistant resin layer; and a depth of the second groove is more than a thickness of the second heat-resistant resin layer. However, He teaches a depth of the first groove is more than a thickness of the first heat-resistant resin layer (Fig 5 shows grooves that are deeper than the heat resistant layer, 120 | He teaches the heat-resistant layer is silicon dioxide); and a depth of the second groove is more than a thickness of the second heat-resistant resin layer (Fig 5 shows grooves that are deeper than the heat resistant layer, 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the grooves of the combination to isolate the through holes as shown in He. A motivation for isolating is to reduce signal interference between channels as taught by He in Para [0057].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Takahashi in view of Okuda in view of Moon in view of Hotta in view of He, as presented with respect to claim 12, teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of second conductive layers have different areas or shapes from each other (He - Fig 5 shows second conductive layers with different areas, the layer on the lower side is noticeably wider than the layer on the upper side). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Morita (US-20200308354-A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Takahashi teaches the anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1 (Refer to claim 1 rejection). Takahashi does not teach a testing board including a plurality of electrodes; and the anisotropic conductive sheet, disposed on or above a surface of the testing board, the surface being a surface on which the plurality of electrodes are disposed. However, Morita teaches a testing board including a plurality of electrodes; and the anisotropic conductive sheet (Fig 1: anisotropic conductive sheet, 1), disposed on or above a surface of the testing board (Can be seen in Fig 1), the surface being a surface on which the plurality of electrodes are disposed (Can be seen in Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Takahashi to include the testing apparatus of Morita. A motivation for this modification is to inspect a semiconductor package or in which the pitch of wiring is narrowed and the wiring itself has been subjected to wire thinning as taught by Morita in the abstract.
Regarding Claim 17, Takahashi teaches the anisotropic conductive sheet according to claim 1 (Refer to claim 1 rejection). Takahashi does not teach an electrical testing method comprising: stacking, via the anisotropic conductive sheet, a testing board including an electrode, and a test object including a terminal, and electrically connecting the electrode of the testing board with the terminal of the test object via the anisotropic conductive sheet. However, Morita teaches an electrical testing method comprising: stacking, via the anisotropic conductive sheet (Fig 1: anisotropic conductive sheet, 1), a testing board including an electrode (Fig 1: circuit board for inspection, 4 | electrodes, 5 & 7), and a test object including a terminal (Fig 1: circuit device as objection of inspection, 2 | electrodes to be inspected, 3), and electrically connecting the electrode of the testing board with the terminal of the test object via the anisotropic conductive sheet (Can be seen in Fig 1 that the board, 4, and test object, 2, are connected through the anisotropic conductive sheet, 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Takahashi to include the testing method of Morita. A motivation for this modification is to inspect a semiconductor package or in which the pitch of wiring is narrowed and the wiring itself has been subjected to wire thinning as taught by Morita in the abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858