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 .
Thia action is in response to amendment filed on August 19, 2025.
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, (a) “the second via-in-via extends from a bottom surface of the PCB,” as recited in claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) as being anticipated by Russell (US 2011/0203842).
Regarding claim 6, Russell, figure 1 (including annotated figure 1), discloses a printed circuit board (PCB), comprising: an internal conductive layer (7, as marked, as marked in the annotated layer); and a first via-in-via (6) extending vertically from a top surface of the PCB (see figure), comprising: a first outer conductive layer (layer on the top surface, not labeled in the figure); a first inner conductive layer (the conductor layer of via-in-via, 6) inside the first outer conductive layer coupled to the internal conductive layer (see figure); a first outer filler (14, see figure) between the first outer conductive layer and the first inner conductive layer (see figure); a first inner filler (14, not labeled in this figure) inside the first inner conductive layer; and a first via-in-via pad over the first inner filler (see figure) and connected to the first inner conductive layer (see figure), wherein the first inner conductive layer is coupled to the internal conductive layer by a first micro via (see figure, annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
570
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2008/0185180).
Regarding claim 7, Russell further discloses a second via-in-via extending vertically from a surface of the PCB, comprising: a second outer conductive layer; a second inner conductive layer inside the second outer conductive layer and coupled to the internal conductive layer; a second outer filler between the second outer conductive layer and the second inner conductive layer; a second inner filler inside the second inner conductive layer; and a second via-in-via pad over the second inner filler and connected to the second inner conductive layer (see figure).
Russell does not disclose wherein the second via-in-via pad is electrically connected to the first via-in-via pad.
Cheng, figure 13, discloses a printed circuit board structure with via-in-via, including a first via-in-via connected with the second via-in-via.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the application to provide the board of Russell with the second via-in-via pad is electrically connected to the first via-in-via pad, as taught by Cheng, in order to have necessary interconnection.
Regarding claim 8, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second via-in-via extends from the top surface of the PCB (obvious considering the bottom surface in the figure or Russel, as the top surface. Also, see figure of Chen).
Regarding claim 9, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second via-in-via extends from a bottom surface of the PCB (obvious considering the bottom surface of the figure of Russel, also, obvious from the figure of Cheng).
Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 10, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the first outer conductive layer comprises copper (obvious as disclosed by, Russel, paragraph 0015), and , Cheng, paragraph 0003, 0029).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worder in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the first outer filler comprises a polymer filler, and the first inner filler comprises a polymer filler (epoxy, paragraph 0015).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worder in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the first inner conductive layer comprises copper (obvious as applied to claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second inner conductive layer is coupled to the internal conductive layer by a second micro-via (see figure of Russel).
Regarding claim 14, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second outer filler comprises a polymer filler, and the second inner filler comprises a polymer filler (obvious as shown in figure 2C, as well as, paragraph 0015).
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worder in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second outer conductive layer comprises copper and the second inner conductive layer comprises copper (obvious as applied to claims 10, and 12).
Regarding claim 16, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the second outer conductive layer comprises a cylinder, and the second inner cylinder comprises a cylinder (see figure).
Regarding claim 17, the modified board of Russell further discloses an internal conductive layer; and a first via-in-via extending perpendicularly from a top surface of the PCB towards the internal conductive layer, comprising: a cylindrical first outer conductive layer connected to a first via pad disposed on the top surface of the PCB; a cylindrical first inner conductive layer disposed inside the cylindrical first outer conductive layer and coupled to the internal conductive layer; a first outer filler between the cylindrical first outer conductive layer and the cylindrical first inner conductive layer; a first inner filler inside the cylindrical first inner conductive layer; and a first via-in-via pad disposed on the first inner filler, connected to the cylindrical first inner conductive layer, and coplanar with the first via pad, wherein the cylindrical first inner conductive layer is coupled to the internal conductive layer by a first micro via (obvious as applied to claim 1, and 16).
Regarding claim 18, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the cylindrical first outer conductive layer and the cylindrical first inner conductive layer each comprise copper, and the first outer filler and the first inner filler each comprise a polymer (obvious as applied to claims 10, 12, 14).
Regarding claim 19, the modified board of Russell further discloses a second via-in-via extending perpendicularly from a surface of the PCB towards the internal conductive layer, comprising: a cylindrical second outer conductive layer; a cylindrical second inner conductive layer inside the cylindrical second outer conductive layer and coupled to the internal conductive layer; a second outer filler between the cylindrical second outer conductive layer and the cylindrical second inner conductive layer; a second inner filler inside the cylindrical second inner conductive layer; and a second via-in-via pad disposed on the second inner filler, connected to the cylindrical second inner conductive layer, and coplanar with the second via pad; wherein the second via-in-via pad is electrically connected to the first via-in-via pad (see figure, as well as, explanation as applied to claims 14, and 16).
Regarding claim 20, the modified board of Russell further discloses wherein the surface is a top surface (obvious as applied to claim 1 above, also, see annotated figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roy US 2010/0163295), figure 1, discloses a printed circuit board with via-in-via structure, as well as, internal conductive layer connected by micro-via.
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 ISHWARBHAI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at 571 272 2342. 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.
/ISHWARBHAI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
IBP / November 4, 2025
Prosecution Insights