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 .
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.
Claims 17-24 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.
The claims recite a process comprising a step of distributing microparticles throughout a resin layer; however, the specification and the claims fail to describe how the microparticles, which are solid, can be distributed throughout a layer which is also solid. It is known in the art that a solid material cannot be distributed throughout a solid layer without altering the form of either the solid material or the solid layer. Here, the instant disclosure simply states that the microparticles be “distributed” “throughout” the resin layer and thus fail to clearly and distinctly describe to one of ordinary in the art how the invention is made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by SAWAKI (WO-2023074765).
NOTE: The SAWAKI (WO-2023074765) is published in non-English, and thus the US-2024/0268020 is used herein as the English translation for the SAWAKI publication. The citations in the rejection reasoning below are taken from the US publication, US-2024/0268020.
Claim 1: Sawaki teaches a circuit board comprising a resin layer and a plurality of particles, i.e. zinc oxide particles and inorganic fillers, distributed throughout the resin layer (para. 0008, 0166-0167, 0176, 0192-0193 and 0216). The inorganic fillers are microparticles because they have an average particle size within a micrometer scale; i.e. 0.1 to 20 mm (para. 0177)
Claims 2-3: The microparticles of inorganic fillers can be solid or hollow matters (para. 0175).
Claim 6: The microparticles of inorganic fillers comprise particles that are made of glass (para. 0171).
Claim 8: Sawaki teaches inorganic fillers containing particles in the form of spheres as a more preferable shape (para. 0175).
Claim 9: Sawaki teaches that, in the art of digital communication, the circuit board as described in claim 1 above is typically used in information handling system, i.e. communication devices (para. 0003).
Claims 10-11: The microparticles of inorganic fillers in the resin layer can be solid or hollow matters (Sawaki, para. 0175).
Claim 14: The microparticles of inorganic fillers in the resin layer comprising particles made of glass (para. 0171).
Claim 16: Sawaki teaches inorganic fillers containing particles in the form of spheres as a more preferable shape (para. 0175).
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by WU (US-2021/0298169).
Claim 1: WU teaches a circuit board comprising a resin layer and a plurality of fillers having average particle size of 5-20 mm (para. 0008-0010 & 0020). As the fillers having particle size in the micrometer scale, the fillers described in Wu are microparticles.
Claims 2-3: The microparticles of Wu include solid and hollow particles (para. 0016).
Claim 4: The internal of the hollow particles is filled with gas (i.e. air) (para. 0033).
Claim 6: The microparticles of Wu include glass particles (para. 0017).
Claim 7: The microparticles of Wu include plastic particles (para. 0015 & 0018)
Claim 8: The microparticles of Wu include spherical particles (para. 0039).
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 16 above, and further in view of WU (US-2021/0298169).
Claim 4: Sawaki teaches a circuit board comprising a layer comprising a resin and plurality of microparticles, wherein the microparticles are hollow as discussed in claims 1 and 3 above. However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with a gas. In the same field of endeavor (i.e. circuit board), Wu teaches a resin layer comprising microparticles wherein the microparticles are hollow particles filled with a gas, i.e. air, as equivalent to solid and other hollow microparticles (Wu, para. 0033). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 7: Wu also teaches plastic fillers as functionally equivalent to glass fillers as microparticles distributed in the resin layer in a circuit board (Wu, para. 0017) ). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 16 above, and further in view of TOROBIN (US-4,303,732).
Sawaki teaches an insulating material of a circuit board comprising a layer comprising a resin and plurality of microparticles, wherein the microparticles are hollow (Sawaki, claim 1, para. 0008, 0166-0167, 0176, 0192-0193 and 0216). However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with vacuum. Torobin teaches vacuum-filled microparticles for the purpose of improving insulation in a composition (Torobin, abstract). Thus, the POSITA would be motivated to utilize the hollow microspheres taught by Torobin in order to improve the insulating material of Sawaki.
Claims 9-11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14, 16 above, and further in view of AMLA (US-2020/0413536).
Claim 9: Sawaki teaches a circuit board comprising a resin layer and microparticles distributed therein as discussed above. In addition, Sawaki discloses that, in the art of digital communication, the circuit board as taught by Sawaki is typically incorporated in communication devices (Sawaki, para. 0003) which devices are exemplified in the instant specification as an information handling system (instant specification, page 9). Amla teaches any digital communication system comprises a transmission line on circuit boards (Amla, para 0007). Transmission line is a processor which helps transmitting and receiving signals which by definition in the instant specification is a processor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line and instant specification, page 5, lines 10-15 and paragraph bridging pages 9-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize the circuit boards taught by Sawaki in communication devices as known in the art as disclosed in AMLA.
Claims 10-11: Sawaki teaches that the microparticles of inorganic fillers can be solid or hollow matters (para. 0175).
Claim 14: The inorganic fillers comprise particles that are made of glass (Sawaki, para. 0171).
Claim 16: The inorganic fillers contain particles in the form of spheres which are the more preferable type (Sawaki, para. 0175).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI in view of common knowledge in the art, such as what is stated in AMLA (US-2020/0413536) as applied to claims 9-11, 14 and 16 and further in view of WU.
Claim 12: Sawaki and common practice in the art as stated in AMLA teach a circuit board comprising a layer comprising a resin and plurality of microparticles, wherein the microparticles are hollow as discussed in claims 1 and 3 above. In addition, Sawaki and AMLA teaches the use of circuit boards in information handling system as discussed in section 11 above. However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with a gas. In the same field of endeavor (i.e. circuit board), Wu teaches a resin layer comprising microparticles wherein the microparticles are hollow particles filled with a gas, i.e. air, as equivalent to solid and other hollow microparticles (Wu, para. 0033). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 15: Wu also teaches plastic fillers as functionally equivalent to glass fillers as microparticles distributed in the resin layer in a circuit board (Wu, para. 0017) ). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI in view of AMLA (US-2020/0413536) as applied to claims 9-11, 14 and 16 above, and further in view of TOROBIN (US-4,303,732).
Sawaki teaches an insulating material of a circuit board comprising a layer comprising a resin and plurality of microparticles, wherein the microparticles are hollow (Sawaki, claim 1, para. 0008, 0166-0167, 0176, 0192-0193 and 0216). Sawaki and AMLA teaches the use of circuit boards in information handling system as discussed in section 11 above. However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with vacuum. Torobin teaches vacuum-filled microparticles for the purpose of improving insulation in a composition (Torobin, abstract). Thus, the POSITA would be motivated to utilize the hollow microspheres taught by Torobin in order to improve the insulating material of Sawaki.
Claims 17-19, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI in view of LEE (US-2011/0123808).
Claim 17: Sawaki teaches a method for making a circuit board comprising forming a composition comprising a resin and plurality of particles and forming a layer comprising the composition (Sawaki, para. 0008, 0166-0167, 0192-0193 and 0216-217). The inorganic fillers are microparticles because they have an average particle size within microscale; i.e. 0.1 to 20 mm (Sawaki, para. 0177). Thus, the difference in the method of Sawaki is that the particles are incorporated into the resin prior to forming the resin layer. In the same field of endeavor, i.e. making circuit boards, Lee teaches forming a resin layer and distributed particles throughout the resin layer (Lee, para. 0029). The purpose of adding the particles (i.e. reinforcing material such as glass fibers) after the formation of the resin layer is to avoid increasing the overall thickness of the circuit board while retaining or improving the performance of the circuit board (Lee, para. 0005-0008). Therefore, the POSITA would have been motivated to adopt the method of Lee in making the circuit board of Sawaki in the manner discussed above.
Claims 18-19: The microparticles (i.e. inorganic fillers) can be solid or hollow matters (Sawaki, para. 0175).
Claim 22: The microparticles (inorganic fillers) comprise particles that are made of glass (Sawaki, para. 0171).
Claim 24: The microparticles (i.e. inorganic fillers) contain particles in the form of spheres as more preferable (Sawaki, para. 0175).
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI in view of LEE as applied to claims 17-19, 22 and 24 and further in view of WU.
Claim 20: Sawaki and Lee teaches a method of making circuit board comprising forming a resin layer and embedding plurality of microparticles throughout the resin layer as discussed in section 13 above, wherein the microparticles are hollow as discussed in claims 1 and 3 above. However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with a gas. In the same field of endeavor (i.e. circuit board), Wu teaches a resin layer comprising microparticles wherein the microparticles are hollow particles filled with a gas, i.e. air, as equivalent to solid and other hollow microparticles (Wu, para. 0033). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 23: Wu also teaches plastic fillers as functionally equivalent to glass fillers as microparticles distributed in the resin layer in a circuit board (Wu, para. 0017) ). In light of this teaching of Wu, it would have been obvious to select hollow particles filled with gas in the inner core as a matter of choice because Wu teaches these particles are functionally equivalent as the fillers for the resin layer in a circuit board.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWAKI SAWAKI in view of LEE as applied to claims 17-19, 22 and 24, and further in view of TOROBIN (US-4,303,732).
Sawaki teaches an insulating material of a circuit board comprising a layer comprising a resin and plurality of microparticles, wherein the microparticles are hollow (Sawaki, claim 1, para. 0008, 0166-0167, 0176, 0192-0193 and 0216). Sawaki and Lee teaches a method of making circuit board comprising forming a resin layer and embedding plurality of microparticles throughout the resin layer as discussed in section 13 above. However, Sawaki does not state whether the inner core of the hollow particles are filled with vacuum. Torobin teaches vacuum-filled microparticles for the purpose of improving insulation in a composition (Torobin, abstract). Thus, the POSITA would be motivated to utilize the hollow microspheres taught by Torobin in order to improve the insulating material of Sawaki.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788