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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz et al. (US 20180177045 A1).
Re claims 1 and 19: Schwarz et al. discloses a component carrier (100; fig. 1) and a method of manufacturing thereof, comprising: a laminated stack (118) being a laminate of at least one electrically conductive layer structure (114) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (116); and an electrically insulating cap structure (104) selectively covering an optical waveguide (106; [0040]) at an exterior surface of the laminated stack, wherein the electrically insulating cap structure is made of an optical organic polymer material (e.g., epoxy resin; [0016] and [0077]).
Re claim 2: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide is a waveguide core cladded by the electrically insulating cap structure (fig. 1; [0079] where “the electronic components 106 are pressed into the component fixation structure 104,” 104 serves as a cladding layer of waveguide 106).
Re claim 3: Schwarz et al. discloses the he component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating cap structure (104) and the at least one electrically insulating layer structure (116) are made of the same material (e.g., epoxy resin; [0016] and [0046]).
Re claim 4: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the electrically insulating cap structure (104), the optical waveguide (106), and the at least one of the electrically insulating layer structure (116) is made of an optical polymeric material and/or glass material ([0046]).
Re claim 5: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the laminated stack is a printed circuit board (100), wherein the optical waveguide (106) is fully embedded in the electrically insulating cap structure (104) (fig. 1).
Re claim 7: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide (106) comprises a cross-section having an edged shape (fig. 1).
Re claim 8: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the electrically insulating cap structure (104) and the at least one electrically insulating layer structure (116) comprise a filling material located a distance of at least 20 pm from the optical waveguide (fig. 1; [0080] within the contact hole 110).
Re claim 10: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the optical waveguides (106) are arranged side by side without direct contact with each other (fig. 1).
Re claim 11: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, further comprising: an optical chip (106; [0040] optoelectronic interface element) connected to the optical waveguide (106), wherein the electrically insulating cap structure and the optical waveguide are vertically shifted in a thickness direction of the laminated stack from the optical chip (figs. 27-28).
Re claim 13: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide and the electrically insulating cap structure are formed on both opposing main surfaces of the laminated stack (102) (fig. 7).
Re claim 14: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein in a cross- sectional view, the electrically insulating cap structure (104) is substantially U-shaped (figs. 22-23).
Re claim 15: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide is a component (106) ([0040]).
Re claim 17: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of the following features:
the component carrier comprises at least one component (106) being surface mounted on and/or embedded in the component carrier ([0039]), wherein the at least one component is in particular selected from a group consisting of an electronic component, an electrically non- conductive and/or electrically conductive inlay, a heat transfer unit, a light guiding element, an energy harvesting unit, an active electronic component, a passive electronic component, an electronic chip, a storage device, a filter, an integrated circuit, a signal processing component, a power management component, an optoelectronic interface element, a voltage converter, a cryptographic component, a transmitter and/or receiver, an electromechanical transducer, an actuator, a microelectromechanical system, a microprocessor, a capacitor, a resistor, an inductance, an accumulator, a switch, a camera, an antenna, a magnetic element, a further component carrier, and a logic chip ([0040]);
wherein the at least one electrically conductive layer structure (114) of the component carrier comprises at least one of the group consisting of copper, aluminum, nickel, silver, gold, palladium, and tungsten ([0048]);
wherein the at least one electrically insulating layer structure (116) comprises at least one of the group consisting of reinforced or non-reinforced resin, epoxy resin or bismaleimide-triazine resin, ABF, FR-4, FR-5, cyanate ester, polyphenylene derivate, glass, prepreg material, polyimide, polyamide, liquid crystal polymer, epoxy-based build-up film, polytetrafluoroethylene, a ceramic, and a metal oxide ([0046]);
wherein the electrically insulating cap structure (104) comprises at least one group consisting of reinforced or non-reinforced resin, epoxy resin or bismaleimide-triazine resin, ABF, FR-4, FR-5, cyanate ester, polyphenylene derivate, glass, prepreg material, polyimide, polyamide, liquid crystal polymer, epoxy-based build-up film, polytetrafluoroethylene, a ceramic, and a mold compound ([0047]);
wherein the component carrier is shaped as a plate ([0044]);
wherein the component carrier is configured as one of the group consisting of a printed circuit board, a substrate, and an interposer ([0009]).
Re claim 18: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, further comprising: a shielding structure (122) on the electrically insulating cap structure (104) for shielding the optical waveguide (106), wherein the shielding structure shields at least against one of electromagnetic radiation, in particular high-frequency radiation, heat radiation, infrared radiation, light, and humidity; and/or the shielding structure is configured to protect a signal integrity of a signal being transported within the optical waveguide ([0110]).
Re claim 21: Schwarz et al. discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein at least one of the optical waveguide, the laminated stack, and the cap structure is formed by one of 3D- printing and nano-imprint lithography ([0044]), wherein at least one of the optical waveguide and the at least one of the plurality electrically insulating layer structure is made of an optical organic polymer material or a glass material ([0046]).
Re claim 22: Schwarz et al. discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the cap structure is manufactured at least by one of plating and sputtering ([0023]).
Re claim 23: Schwarz et al. discloses the method according to claim 19, further comprising: forming a shielding structure (122) on the electrically insulating cap structure (104) for shielding the optical waveguide (106; [0110]).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20180177045 A1).
Re claim 6: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, and further teaches the electrically insulating cap structure (104) comprises a layer thickness, d, is 5 μm and the maximum thickness, D, is between several micrometers and several ten micrometers (fig. 1; [0079]), but does not explicitly disclose the electrically insulating cap structure layer’s thickness being at least 3 times larger than a layer thickness of the optical waveguide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the thickness of the electrically insulating cap structure to be at least 3 times larger than a layer thickness of the optical waveguide since such modification is merely a design choice which falls within Schwarz et al.’s range for changing a size of a layer, and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20180177045 A1) in view of Weis (US 11398334 B2).
Re claim 9: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating cap structure comprises a porous material having open and/or closed pores being filled by a fluid.
Weis discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating cap structure comprises a porous material having open and/or closed pores being filled by a fluid or gas (col. 4, line 65 through col. 5, line 10 where the gap is filled with air, which can be both a gas and a fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to add liquid fillers of Masuyama et al. to the electrically insulating cap structure of Schwarz et al. for tailored viscosity, improved handling, and enhanced physical properties without sacrificing strength.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20180177045 A1) in view of Masuyama et al (US 9696496 B2).
Re claims 12 and 16: Schwarz et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, but fails to teach the electrically insulating cap structure is a solder resist OR on top of the electrically insulating cap structure, at least one of a surface finish and a further solder resist is formed.
Masuyama et al. discloses the component carrier according to claim 1, wherein the electrically insulating cap structure (35) is a solder resist (Fig. 5; col. 11, lines 14-31); wherein on top of the electrically insulating cap structure (35), at least one of a surface finish (67a) and a further solder resist is formed (layer 67b - Fig. 5; col. 11, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to add solder resist/mask of Masuyama et al. to the electrically insulating cap structure of Schwarz et al. to prevent short circuits, solder bridges, and oxidation, thereby enhance the device’s reliability.
Claim(s) 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20180177045 A1) in view of Brusberg (US 20180217326 A1).
Re claim 20: Schwarz et al. discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the cap structure is formed by one of spin coating and spray coating.
Brusberg discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the cap structure (150) is formed by spray coating (paragraphs [0080] and [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the spray coating method as taught by Brusberg to form the cap structure of Schwarz et al. for its superior surface protection and cost effective. One of ordinary skill could have formed the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re claim 24: Schwarz et al. discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the step of forming a cap structure (104) selectively covering an optical waveguide (106) at an exterior surface of the laminated stack comprises the following sub-steps: providing a solid glass body on or above the laminated stack ([0019]). Schwarz et al. further discloses the use of glass fibers and laser drilling [0044], but is silent with respect to laser-processing the glass body to form a reflection layer inside the glass body, the reflection layer delimiting the optical waveguide from the cap structure so that the optical waveguide and the cap structure are formed in the glass body.
Brusberg discloses the step of forming a cap structure (depth dC and 150; Figs. 2A, 3A) selectively covering an optical waveguide (61) at an exterior surface of the laminated stack comprises the following sub-steps: providing a solid glass body (11) on or above the stack; and laser-processing the glass body (11) to form the optical waveguide (61) from the cap structure (depth dC and 150; Figs. 2A, 3A) so that the optical waveguide (61) and the cap structure (depth dC and 150; Figs. 2A, 3A) are formed in the glass body (11) (paragraphs [0096-0104]). Though Brusberg does not explicitly disclose the laser-processing the glass body (11) to form a reflection layer inside the glass body (11), the reflection layer delimiting the optical waveguide (61) from the cap structure (150), such reflection layer is necessary in order for the structure to properly operate, i.e., optical signals are confined within the waveguide, since the optical waveguide (61) and the cap structure (depth dC and 150; Figs. 2A, 3A) are formed in the glass body (11), which is the same structure and method (laser processing) of the claimed limitations of claim 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to employ the method of forming an optical waveguide and a cap structure in a glass body as taught by Brusberg in the system of Schwarz et al. since one of ordinary skill could have formed the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 7809220 B2) discloses the claimed structure with the use of solder resist except organic polymer material of the cap.
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 Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights