DETAILED ACTION
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(s)1-6, 8-9, and 12-13 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the second circuit board being coupled to first conductor electrically coupled to the first circuit board,” is unclear as to the antecedent basis or lack thereof of “first conductor.” It is further unclear as to what is “electrically coupled to the first circuit board.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “[routing, paragraph 49, FIG. 2, carrier interface?, relative]” is unclear as to what is required by the limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “PCB” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, applicant’s disclosure provides the following context for the proper interpretation of “PCB” “the term ‘circuit board’, including the mentioned ‘main circuit board’ and ‘sub-sized circuit board’, also known as a printed circuit board (PCB), refer a flat, rigid board made of insulating material, typically fiberglass or plastic, that contains a complex network of metallic pathways, or ‘traces,’ that form the electrical circuitry for various electronic devices” (see [0015]). This would seem to indicate that a proper interpretation of “PCB” is a flat, rigid board made of insulating material that contains a complex network of metallic pathways that form the electrical circuitry for various electronic devices, noting that “typically fiberglass or plastic,” are merely examples and cannot be taken as limiting, and also noting that “rigid” is a relative term and since the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, any degree of rigidity would be understood to meet the scope of PCB. Applicant argues, however, that element 230 of Lee does not read on “PCB,” because the term “PCB” requires a particular method of making and should be a “self-supporting ‘board’ that provides structure rigidity and support.” Accordingly, applicant’s arguments introduce a lack of clarity as to the proper interpretation of the claimed term. Additionally, if Applicant’s argued meaning of PCB is to be applied, “self-supporting,” “rigidity” and “support” are each relative terms and render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the printed circuit board further comprising a plurality of conductive wires each having a length that extend through the second filling material and connected to solder joints on the first top surface,” is unclear as to what the claim requires. Specifically, it appears as if the “plurality of conductive wires” is intended as element 284, however it would not be understood that the second circuit board 280 comprises 284, and it further makes unclear how the “second bottom surface” of the second circuit board should be interpreted if element 284 is to be understood as a part of the second circuit board. Additionally, it is unclear as to how the “plurality of conductive wires” are related to the previously recited “first conductor.” Specifically, as best understood, the “first conductor” is also intended to be element 284, and it is unclear what other element is intended by either “first conductor” or the “plurality of wires.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the third bottom surface being coupled to the first top surface in a region of the first area of the first circuit board,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, the “first area” is previously recited as if it is intended to mean the measure of the size of the first top surface (i.e. a dimension), and not a portion of the first top surface (i.e. a section, portion or part). However the recitation “in a region of the first area,” appears to be intended that “first area” means a portion of the first top surface.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first filling material comprising a third height between the first top surface and the second top surface,” is unclear what is required by the claim. Specifically, the first filling is understood to be either 225, 215 or 205. If 205, the height does is not understood to be between the top surface of 200 (i.e. first top surface) and the top surface of 280/290 (i.e. the second top surface). If 215 or 225, however, the height cannot be higher than range of the bottom surface of 280/290 (i.e. the second bottom surface), and therefore the full scope of the range is not supported.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the first top surface in the first area of the first circuit” is unclear as to how it is related to the first top surface and the first area of the first circuit board. It is also unclear because the “first area” is previously recited as an attribute of the first area, and therefore it is unclear what is means for the first top surface to be “in the first area.” Additionally, the “first area” is previously recited as if it is intended to mean the measure of the size of the first top surface (i.e. a dimension), and not a portion of the first top surface (i.e. a section, portion or part). However the recitation “in a region of the first area,” appears to be intended that “first area” means a portion of the first top surface.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the first top surface…comprises a solder joint,” is unclear as to how the surface of the circuit board can comprise a solder joint because the solder joint is understood as an element on the circuit board and not a part of the circuit board.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the conductor post being configured to couple to the solder joint having a height of 15 um disposed,” is unclear as to what is “disposed.” It is further unclear as which element has the claimed height.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a second front surface in the second area of the second circuit board” is unclear as to “second front surface of what element,” and as to how it is related to the previously recited “second top surface” and “second bottom surface.” It is further unclear because “second area” is previously recited as if it is intended to mean the measure of the size of the second top surface (i.e. a dimension), and not a portion of the second top surface (i.e. a section, portion or part). However the recitation “in a region of the second area,” appears to be intended that “first area” means a portion of the first top surface.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite for depending on cancelled claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “multiple conductive wires,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “plurality of wires” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “within the third area” as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, the “third area” is previously recited as if it is intended to mean the measure of the size of the fourth bottom surface (i.e. a dimension), and not a portion of the fourth bottom surface. However the recitation “in the third area,” appears to be intended that “third area” means a portion of the fourth bottom surface (i.e. a section, portion or part).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “common ground” is unclear as to how it is related to the “ground connections” recited in claim 1.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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)(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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20240055394; herein “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses in Fig. 9 and related text a semiconductor device comprising:
a first circuit board (100, see [0023]) comprising a first top surface (top surface of 100) and a first bottom surface (bottom surface of 100) separated by a first thickness, the first top surface being characterized by a first area;
a first circuit (310, see [0044]) coupled to the first top surface of the first circuit board, the first circuit being characterized by a first height from the first top surface;
a second circuit board (230, see [0030]) comprising a second top surface (top surface of 230) and a second bottom surface (bottom surface of 230) separated by a second thickness, the second bottom surface being characterized by a second area and positioned at a second height away from the first top surface, the second top surface being farther from the first top surface than the second bottom surface, the second area being smaller than the first area, the second circuit board being coupled to first conductor (240, see [0025]) electrically coupled to the first circuit board;
[routing, paragraph 49, FIG. 2, carrier interface?, relative]
a second circuit (210, see [0030]) comprising a third top surface (top surface of 210) and a third bottom surface (bottom surface of 210) separated by a third thickness, the third bottom surface being coupled to the first top surface in a region of the first area of the first circuit board, the third top surface being opposite to the third bottom surface and coupled to the second bottom surface in the second area of the second circuit board;
a first filling material (400, see [0051]) comprising a third height between the first top surface and the second top surface; and
a second filling material (220, see [0030]) enclosing the first conductor and the second circuit;
wherein the second circuit board (230) comprises a printed circuit board (interpreted as a flat, rigid board made of insulating material that contains a network of metallic pathways that form the electrical circuitry for electronic devices, see [0015] as applicant’s specification; note that “rigid” is a relative term as since the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, any degree of rigidity is understood to meet the scope of the limitation), the printed circuit board comprising routing connections and ground connections for components of the second circuit (see [0041] and [0045] at least), the printed circuit board further comprising a plurality of conductive wires (240) each having a length that extend through the second filling material and connected to solder joints (204, see [0041]) on the first top surface.
Note that, although shown by the prior art, is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “routing connections and ground connections for components of the second circuit” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses
a third circuit board (630, see [0081]) comprising a fourth top surface (top surface of 630) and a fourth bottom surface (bottom surface of 630) separated by a fourth thickness, the fourth bottom surface being characterized by a third area and positioned at a fourth height facing the first top surface, the fourth top surface being farther from the first top surface than the fourth bottom surface, the third area plus the second area being smaller than the first area, the third circuit board comprising a second conductor (640, see [0081]) electrically coupled to the first circuit board;
a third circuit (610, see [0081]) comprising a fifth top surface (top surface of 610) and a fifth bottom surface (bottom surface of 610) separated by a fifth thickness, the fifth bottom surface being coupled to the first top surface in the first area of the first circuit board, the fifth top surface being opposite to the fifth bottom surface and coupled to the fourth bottom surface in the third area of the third circuit board; and
a third filling material (620, see [0081]) enclosing the second conductor and the third circuit.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses wherein the first circuit board (100) comprises 9 layers, but does not explicitly disclose a total thickness being the first thickness of 270 um or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the insulating and electrical characteristics of the board, and the functionality of the wiring structure within the board. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses wherein the first circuit (310) comprises a surface mount technology device, but does not explicitly disclose the first height up to 295 um.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the insulating and electrical characteristics of the boards, and the functionality of the wiring structure within the boards. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses wherein the second circuit comprises a double-sided (e.g. has two dies) fanout die (see fanout routing 212), but does not explicitly disclose the third thickness of 140 um or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the insulating and electrical characteristics of the board, and the functionality of the wiring structure within the board. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses wherein the second circuit (210) comprises a conductor post (e.g. pad at bottom of 212 bonded to 202) disposed on the third bottom surface, the first top surface in the first area of the first circuit comprises a solder joint, the conductor post being configured to couple to the solder joint having a height of 15 um disposed.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the electrical characteristics of the connection. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Further, note that is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “configured to couple to the solder joint having a height of 15 um disposed” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses the second circuit (210) comprises a conductor pad (e.g. pad at bottom of 212 bonded to 202) having a thickness of 5 um disposed on the third top surface, the conductor pad being configured to couple to a solder joint either disposed on the second front surface in the second area of the second circuit board or on top of the conductor pad, but does not explicitly disclose having a height of 5 um.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the electrical characteristics of the connection. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Further, note that is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “the conductor pad being configured to couple to a solder joint either disposed on the second front surface in the second area of the second circuit board or on top of the conductor pad” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Pu et al. (US 20230282586; herein “Pu”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses wherein the second circuit board (230) comprises four layers (see Fig. 9), the four layers comprising signal paths and routings (210), but does not disclose
a total thickness being the second thickness of 100 um or less, the signal paths and routings that at least connect various electrical components of the second circuit to the first circuit board or to a common ground.
In the same field of endeavor, Pu teaches in Fig. 2H and related text a semiconductor device comprising the second circuit board (20) comprising signal paths and routings that at least connect various electrical components of the second circuit (21) to the first circuit board (30) or to a common ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee by having the signal paths and routings that at least connect various electrical components of the second circuit to the first circuit board or to a common ground, as taught by Pu, in order to employ a top side chip active face and connection instead of a bottom side chip active face and connection.
Additionally, regarding the limitation “the second thickness of 100 um or less,” one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the overall size of the device, the insulating and electrical characteristics of the board and contacts, and the functionality of the wiring structure within the board. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lee to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of the aforementioned characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Further, note that is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “at least connect various electrical components of the third circuit to a common ground” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses
a fourth circuit (e.g. 320) packaged as a single-sided flip-chip die coupled to the first top surface of the first circuit board;
multiple conductor wires (e.g. additional ones of 240/640) coupled to the first top surface of the first circuit board extending through the first filling material, the multiple conductor wires being used for compartment shielding,
but does not explicitly disclose
a fifth circuit packaged as a single-sided flip-chip die coupled to the first bottom surface of the first circuit board;
In the same field of endeavor, Pu teaches in Fig. 2H and related text a semiconductor device comprising
a fifth circuit packaged (31, see [0042]) as a single-sided flip-chip die coupled to the first bottom surface of the first circuit board (30);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee by having a fifth circuit packaged as a single-sided flip-chip die coupled to the first bottom surface of the first circuit board, as taught by Pu, in order to provide a semiconductor device with high performance, improved operation, and increased transmission speed (see Pu abstract, [0005], [0015]).
Further, note that is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “the multiple conductor wires being used for compartment shielding” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in further discloses wherein the third circuit board (630) comprises signal paths and routings. The remaining limitations are taught in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10) that Lee does not teach or suggest the second circuit board is a PCB because a it is a redistribution layer which is “typically a thin-film structure formed layer-by-layer over a die or mold compound using deposition and lithography processes,” and “is not a rigid, self-supporting ‘board’ that provides structure rigidity and support.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. First, it is first noted that the process by which the structure is formed (i.e. “formed layer-by-layer over a die or mold compound using deposition and lithography processes” or formed by a different process) is not germane to the claims directed to a product because the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Additionally, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the method of forming) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), nor is there a supporting disclosure of a method of making applicants circuit board.
Second, regarding the structural features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “is not a rigid, self-supporting ‘board’ that provides structure rigidity and support,”), it is noted that these features are also 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).
It is important to note that Applicant provides the following disclosure regarding PCBs: “the term ‘circuit board’, including the mentioned ‘main circuit board’ and ‘sub-sized circuit board’, also known as a printed circuit board (PCB), refer a flat, rigid board made of insulating material, typically fiberglass or plastic, that contains a complex network of metallic pathways, or ‘traces,’ that form the electrical circuitry for various electronic devices” (see [0015]). In light of this disclosure, applicant’s desire to narrowly define PCB as being “self-supporting ‘board’ that provides structure rigidity and support,” is unfounded and improper. Although the disclosure does recite “rigid” it is noted that “rigid” is a relative term and since the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, any degree of rigidity would be understood to meet the scope of PCB. Accordingly, as best understood, element 230 of Lee reads on “PCB” because it is a flat, rigid board made of insulating material that contains a complex network of metallic pathways that form the electrical circuitry for various electronic devices.
Additionally, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that standard use of the term “PCB” is not found. It is often used interchangeable with terms such as “board,” “wiring board,” “package substrate,” “laminate substrate,” “interposer,” “redistribution,” etc., and are merely words to indicate a substrate with wiring therein (see, for example: 20250293206, [0127]; 20240178206, [0070]). In other instances, the specific terms are merely employed to indicate a process of making the board (see, for example: 20190385977, [0070]; 20230197543, [0053]; 20230395443, [0048]), which as noted above is not germane to the issue of patentability of a device. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proper interpretation of “PCB” required some feature that is not shown by 230 of Lee, it is further noted that, the extent to which the terms are used separately in the art, they are used as equivalent, interchangeable structures (see, for example: 20210407942, [0133] and [0135]; 20200411397, [0049]; 20200043854, [0033]; 20210233848, [0033]; 20230050969, [0034]; 20210090908, [0034]; 20190348340, [0051]). Accordingly, it is noted that even a narrower interpretation of the term “PCB” would not result in allowable subject matter.
Applicant argues (page 10) that Lee does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because “a redistribution layer does not provide conductive wires and connectivity recited in the amended claim.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, Lee teaches the plurality of conductive wires (240) and connectivity recited in the amended claim (see [0041] and [0045] at least). It is also noted that, although shown by the prior art, is it is the Office' s position that the limitation of “routing connections and ground connections for components of the second circuit” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the device of Lee has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 2/19/2026