DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitations of claim 11 have been amended into claim 10, so claim 11 does not further limit the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PGPub 2022/0051972) in view of Fujihara (U.S. PGPub 2025/0210435), Uchida (U.S. PGPub 2024/0015888), and Furutani (U.S. PGPub 2024/0196526).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a packaging substrate (Fig. 4(b)) comprising a core layer comprising a glass substrate having a first surface and a second surface facing each other and a cavity portion passing through the glass substrate (22, 21, [0076]; 28/281, [0153]); wherein a cavity module is disposed in the cavity portion, the cavity module comprises a cavity element, and an insulating layer in the remaining portion of the cavity module (40, [0185]; 284, [0171]).
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a first insulating layer is disposed on some surfaces other than one surface or on all the surface of the cavity element, and a second insulating layer is incorporated into a remaining portion of the cavity portion other than the cavity module, and the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer have different dielectric constants, wherein a high-frequency dielectric constant Dk is the dielectric constant at a high frequency of 5.8 Ghz, a high-frequency dielectric constant of the first insulating layer is 2.3 to 3.4, and a high-frequency dielectric constant of the second insulating layer is 3.0 to 3.6.
Fujihara teaches wherein a device has a first insulating layer disposed on some surfaces other than one surface (Fig. 4, 50/85, [0024]) and a second insulating layer on the device and first insulating layer (86, [0023]), wherein the first insulating layer has reduced electrical loss of a high-frequency signal relative to the second insulating layer ([0005], [0040], [0048]).
Uchida teaches wherein reducing the dielectric constant and dissipation factor of an insulating layer improves high-frequency characteristics ([0077]).
Furutani teaches wherein insulating materials having good high-frequency signal transmission characteristics have a high-frequency dielectric constant in the range of 3.0-4.0 ([0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The Examiner notes that Applicant cannot argue that the specific claimed ranges are critical, as no explanation or evidence regarding criticality is present in the disclosure.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fujihara and Uchida with Kim such that a first insulating layer is disposed on some surfaces other than one surface or on all the surface of the cavity element, and a second insulating layer is incorporated into a remaining portion of the cavity portion other than the cavity module, and the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer have different dielectric constants, wherein a high-frequency dielectric constant Dk is the dielectric constant at a high frequency of 5.8 Ghz, a high-frequency dielectric constant of the first insulating layer is 2.3 to 3.4, and a high-frequency dielectric constant of the second insulating layer is 3.0 to 3.6 for the purpose of improving the high-frequency characteristics of the substrate (Kim, [0005]; Fujihara, [0040]; Uchida [0077]; Furutani, [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the first insulating layer has a dielectric constant lower than or equal to that of the second insulating layer (see rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the dielectric constant of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are different (see rejection of claim 1).
Fujihara teaches wherein the properties of the first insulating material are chosen for reducing electrical loss of a high frequency signal ([0040]) and the second insulating material are chosen to improve mold characteristics ([0041]).
Uchida teaches wherein the dielectric constant directly affects the ability of a high frequency signal to flow through an insulating layer ([0077]).
Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB. The Examiner notes that Applicant cannot argue that the specific claimed range is critical, as no explanation or evidence regarding criticality is present in the disclosure, and the dielectric constants are not required to be different (Spec, p. 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu with Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani such that a difference between Dk1 as a high-frequency dielectric constant of the first insulating layer and Dk2 as a high-frequency dielectric constant of the second insulating layer is 0.1 or more for the purpose of optimizing the properties of each layer (Fujihara, [0041]; Uchida, [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the dielectric loss factor of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are different (Fujihara, [0040]-[0041]), and wherein the dielectric loss factor of the first insulating material are chosen for reducing electrical loss of a high frequency signal ([0040]) and the dielectric loss factor of second insulating material are chosen to improve mold characteristics ([0041]). Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB. The Examiner notes that Applicant cannot argue that the specific claimed range is critical, as no explanation or evidence regarding criticality is present in the disclosure.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu with Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani such that the dielectric loss factor of the first insulating layer is Df1, the dielectric loss factor of the second insulating layer is Df2, and a difference between the Df1 and the Df2 is 0.0001 or more for the purpose of optimizing the properties of each layer (Fujihara, [0041]; Uchida, [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the first insulating layer comprises liquid crystal polymer (LCP), Epoxy Molding Compound (EMC), Ajinomoto Build-up Film (ABF), or Modified Polyimide (MPI) (Fujihara, [0024], [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the second insulating layer comprises an insulating mixture; and the insulating mixture comprises inorganic particles and a polymer resin (Fujihara, [0024], filler-containing epoxy resin; Furutani, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein one or more connection electrodes are disposed in a direction toward the bottom surface of the cavity element (Kim, [0193], [0198]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the cavity element comprises a passive element or an active element (Kim, [0172]-[0174]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein a first insulating layer via penetrating the first insulating layer is further disposed at the first insulating layer, and parts of or all the first insulating layer via is filled with an electrode material (Kim, Fig. 4(a), 283/284; Uchida, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-11, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a packaging substrate (Fig. 4(b)) comprising: preparing a glass substrate in which a cavity portion is disposed and a cavity module, arranging the cavity module in the cavity portion (22, 21, [0076]; 28/281, [0153]); laminating an insulating layer on the glass substrate (284, [0169]-[0172], cavity distribution pattern formed on the packaging substrate), wherein the cavity module comprises a cavity element (40, [0185]).
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the cavity module comprises a first insulating layer surrounding at least a part of the cavity element, and the first insulating layer is disposed on a surface other than one surface or on all the surface of the cavity element, wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer have different dielectric constants, wherein a high-frequency dielectric constant Dk is the dielectric constant at a high frequency of 5.8 Ghz, a high-frequency dielectric constant of the first insulating layer is 2.3 to 3.4, and a high-frequency dielectric constant of the second insulating layer is 3.0 to 3.6.
Fujihara teaches wherein a device has a first insulating layer disposed on some surfaces other than one surface (Fig. 4, 50/85, [0024]) and a second insulating layer on the device and first insulating layer (86, [0023]), wherein the first insulating layer has reduced electrical loss of a high-frequency signal relative to the second insulating layer ([0005], [0040], [0048]).
Uchida teaches wherein reducing the dielectric constant and dissipation factor of an insulating layer improves high-frequency characteristics ([0077]).
Furutani teaches wherein insulating materials having good high-frequency signal transmission characteristics have a high-frequency dielectric constant in the range of 3.0-4.0 ([0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The Examiner notes that Applicant cannot argue that the specific claimed ranges are critical, as no explanation or evidence regarding criticality is present in the disclosure.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fujihara and Uchida with Kim such that the cavity module comprises a first insulating layer surrounding at least a part of the cavity element, and the first insulating layer is disposed on a surface other than one surface or on all the surface of the cavity element, wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer have different dielectric constants for the purpose of improving the high-frequency characteristics of the substrate (Kim, [0005]; Fujihara, [0040]; Uchida [0077]; Furutani, [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the first insulating layer comprises liquid crystal polymer (LCP), Epoxy Molding Compound (EMC), Ajinomoto Build-up Film (ABF), or Modified Polyimide (MPI) (Fujihara, [0024], [0044]; Furutani, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein the second insulating layer comprises an Ajinomoto Build-up Film (ABF) or an epoxy molding compound (EMC) (Fujihara, [0024]; Furutani, [0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani teaches wherein one or more connection electrodes are disposed in a direction toward the bottom surface of the cavity element (Kim, [0193], [0198]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Kim, Fujihara, Uchida, and Furutani for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights