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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the REMARKS, “Pen fails to teach "the at least one plated through-hole comprises a first plated segment seamlessly connected to a second plated segment wrapped over the edge of the at least one inner conductive trace or terminating land, the second plated segment extending at least a portion of the surface of the at least one inner conductive trace or terminating land," as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, Pen discloses a conductive layer 108 disposed over the core 104 and a thicker plating 112 disposed in the through hole. As illustrated in FIG. 12 of Pen, the conductive layer 108 and the thicker plating 112 wrapped around the core 108. However, the thicker plating 112 does not wrap around the conductive layer 108 and does not extend at least a portion of the surface of the conductive layer 108”.
Applicant also argues on page 10 of the REMARKS, “As shown above, Pen discloses plating on sidewalls of the via 110 only. The plating 112' on a portion of the conductive layer 118 is dissolved as disclosed above by Pen. The electroplating 112 has no overlapping with a portion of the top surface of the conductive layer 118”.
The Office respectfully disagrees. As seen by the annotated figures 10 and 11 shown below, Pen teaches plating layer 112’ is plated onto the sidewall and into the recesses at 115. [0035] states “Next, an electroless plating process is performed to form plating 112′ on the side walls of the via 110. In some embodiments, copper is used as the plating material. It is understood that other plating materials can be used. The plating 112′ forms an interconnect with the various conductive layers 108. In the area of the plug 140, the plating 112′ is formed on the plating resist 118 within the cavities 115 and exposed plug non-conductive layer 106 between the two plating resist layers 118”. Thus, as seen in Fig 10 and Fig 11, plating 112’ is formed by a plating process such that a FIRST PLATED SEGMENT of 112’ (see annotated Fig 10 and annotated Fig 11), a vertical portion of 112’, is formed seamlessly with a SECOND PLATED SEGMENT of 112’ (see annotated Fig 10 and annotated Fig 11), a horizontal portion of 112’ at 115. These segments or portions of 112’ are all formed at the same time during the plating process (see [0035]) and thus would be formed seamlessly. The segments wrap over the edge at inner trace/land 108. As Fig 10 and Fig 11 shows the claimed structure, the rejection stands, as the claim limitations are still being met by Pen.
PNG
media_image1.png
711
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 10 and Fig 11 from Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 9, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1) discloses a multilayer structure for a printed wiring board (PWB) (Fig 11), the multilayer structure comprising: a plurality of insulating layers (104,106; [0028]) interleaved with a plurality of conductive layers (108; [0028]) comprising one or more inner conductive layers (108), a top conductive layer (upper 108), and a bottom conductive layer (lower 108); at least one through-hole (110) through the plurality of insulating layers (106,104) and the plurality of conductive layers (108); at least one secondary material layer (118; [0035]) formed on (see Fig 11 showing 118 contacting a horizontal surface of inner 108) at least one inner conductive trace (inner 108 at 110) or a terminating land (inner 108 at 110) having a surface (see Fig 11 showing surface of 108 at 115) and an edge (see Fig 11 showing inner edge of inner 108 at 110) near one of the at least one through-hole (110), the at least one secondary material layer (118) (after being removed partially (see Fig 11 showing a portion of 118 removed at 115)) defining a recess (115; [0028-0029]) that allows (plating (112’; [0033-0037])) on both the edge (see Fig 11 showing 112’ at the corner of 108) and the surface (see Fig 11 showing 112’ on a surface of 108 at 115) of the at least one inner conductive trace (108) or the terminating land (108); at least one (plated ([0035] “plating process”)) through-hole (112’ at 110; plating 112’ is at hole 110) being formed (after plating (112’; [0035])) the at least one through-hole (110) including the recess (112’ is formed at 115 in Fig 11) formed in the at least one secondary material layer (118), wherein the at least (plated [0035]) one through-hole (110) comprises a first (plated) segment (see annotated Fig 11 showing a vertical portion of 112’ at inner 108 adjacent 110; note that the structural limits of this claimed segment are not structurally claimed) seamlessly connected to a second (plated [0035]) segment (see annotated Fig 11 showing a horizontal portion of 112’ at 115 and contacting a portion of the surface of inner 108 at 115; note that the structural limits of this claimed segment are not structurally claimed) wrapped over the edge (see Fig 11 showing 112’ wrapping over the inner edge of inner 108 from 110 to 115) of the at least one inner conductive trace (inner 108) or terminating land (inner 108), the second (plated [0035]) segment extending (see Fig 11 showing a portion of 112’ contacting inner 108 extending left-right at 115) at least a portion of the surface (surface of inner 108 at 115) of the at least one inner conductive trace (inner 108) or terminating land (inner 108).
Claim states a “plated”, “after plating”, “after being removed partially” and “plating”, but “plated”, “after plating”, “after being removed partially” and “plating” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the layer is formed. Thus the Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of plating and steps having an order (i.e. “after”), and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. “plated”, “plating”, “after plating” and “after being removed partially”, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ----. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 2, Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, wherein the at least one secondary material layer (118) comprises a material ([0031]) different from the plurality of conductive layers.
Regarding Claim 3, T Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, wherein the at least one secondary material layer (118) circumferentially surrounds ([0034]) the at least one through-hole (115).
Regarding Claim 4, Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of insulating layers (104,106) comprise a dielectric material ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 9, Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, wherein the top conductive layer (upper 108) is over one of the plurality of insulating layers (106), and the bottom conductive layer (lower 108) is under another one of the plurality of insulating layers (106).
Regarding Claim 21, Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, further comprising a spot face (portion about 115 in Fig 11 exposes 106) to expose one of the plurality of insulating layers (106) and to break electrical connection to either the top or the bottom conductive layer (108) of the multilayer structure.
Regarding Claim 23, Pen further discloses the multilayer structure (Fig 11) of claim 1, wherein the recess (115) is sized large enough to allow plating (112’ is on the corner of 110 and 115 such that 112’ is formed on the inner wall surface of 110 and the horizontal surface of 108 at 115) on both the edge and the surface of the at least one inner conductive trace (108) or the terminating land (108).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Pen discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Pen does not explicitly disclose the multilayer structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive layers comprise copper.
However Pen teaches of a multilayer structure ([0003]), wherein a plurality of conductive layers (“conductive sheets”) comprise copper ([0003]). Pen further teaches that copper is an electrically conductive material ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as disclosed by Pen (Fig 11), wherein the plurality of conductive layers comprise copper as taught by Pen, as both limitations are provided by the same publication, in order to provide an electrically conductive material (Pen, [0003-0004]) and furthermore since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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 to provide an electrically conductive material. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kamei (U 2008/0217048 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Pen discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Pen does not disclose the multilayer structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one secondary material layer comprises a metal selected from one of a group consisting of tin (Sn) and lead (Pb) alloy, Sn, nickel (Ni), and aluminum (Al).
Kamei (U 2008/0217048 A1) teaches of at least one secondary material layer (5) comprises a metal selected from one of a group consisting of tin (Sn) ([0069]) and lead (Pb) alloy, Sn ([0069]), nickel (Ni) ([0069]), and aluminum (Al).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as disclosed by Pen, wherein the at least one secondary material layer comprises a metal selected from one of a group consisting of tin (Sn) and lead (Pb) alloy, Sn, nickel (Ni), and aluminum (Al) as taught by Kamei, in order to prevent unwanted plating, prevent corrosion, and prevent discoloration (Kamei, [0013-0017,0069]) and furthermore since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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 to prevent unwanted plating, prevent corrosion, and prevent discoloration. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0118,0173], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 7, Pen discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Pen does not explicitly disclose the multilayer structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one secondary material layer comprises one or more organic materials of different solubility from that of PWB laminate materials including base laminate, conductive polymers, and primary conductor material.
Kamei (U 2008/0217048 A1) teaches of at least one secondary material layer (5) comprises one or more organic materials of different solubility from that of PWB laminate materials including base laminate, conductive polymers, and primary conductor material ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as disclosed by Pen, wherein the at least one secondary material layer comprises one or more organic materials of different solubility from that of PWB laminate materials including base laminate, conductive polymers, and primary conductor material as taught by Kamei, in order to prevent unwanted plating, prevent corrosion, and prevent discoloration (Kamei, [0013-0017,0069]) and furthermore since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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 to prevent unwanted plating, prevent corrosion, and prevent discoloration. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0171], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pen (US 2016/0278208 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Iketani (US 2014/0262455 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Pen discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Pen does not disclose the multilayer structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one secondary material layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mils to 5.0 mils.
Iketani (US 2014/0262455 A1) teaches of a multilayer structure (Fig 12), wherein at least one secondary material layer (1270) has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mils to 5.0 mils ([0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as disclosed by Pen, wherein the at least one secondary material layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mils to 5.0 mils as taught by Iketani, in order to provide an effective partition and effective electrical isolation (Iketani, [0079-0086]) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide an effective partition and effective electrical isolation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights