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 filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the prior art does not disclose: "the first metal material has a first thermal expansion coefficient, the second metal material has a second thermal expansion coefficient, and the second thermal expansion coefficient is greater than the first thermal expansion coefficient." Examiner respectfully disagreed: Park discloses in (para [0039]) that the metal 131 can be made of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), tin (Sn), gold (Au), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), titanium (Ti), or alloys thereof. Park also discloses in (para [0037]) that the metal 122 can be made of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), tin (Sn), gold (Au), nickel (Ni). Park never discloses that 131 and 122 need to be made of the same metal. Therefore, metal 131 can be made of silver and 122 can be made of copper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 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
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 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (US 20240215157 A1, “PARK”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses (Fig. 3 and 7) a circuit board structure (100A, 600) including metal materials with different thermal expansion coefficients, comprising: a core substrate layer (111, 311); a first wiring layer (121) formed on the core substrate layer; an insulating dielectric layer (112) formed on the first wiring layer, wherein the insulating dielectric layer has a signal via hole (H) formed at an inner side thereof; a first metal material (122) formed in the signal via hole and on the first wiring layer; and a second metal material (131) formed in the signal via hole and on the first metal material; wherein the first metal material has a first thermal expansion coefficient, the second metal material has a second thermal expansion coefficient, and the second thermal expansion coefficient is greater than the first thermal expansion coefficient (131 is made of silver [0039] and 122 is made of copper [0037]; Silver has a higher linear thermal expansion coefficient than copper).
Regarding claim 2, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 1, wherein a volume expansion rate of the second metal material is greater than a volume expansion rate of the first metal material, so that the second metal material generates a compression stress on the first metal material when the circuit board structure undergoes a high-temperature operation; wherein the first metal material is compressed by the second metal material to be in continuous contact with the first wiring layer, so as to maintain electrical connection between the first metal material and the first wiring layer (131 is made of silver [0039] and 122 is made of copper [0037]; Silver has a higher volume expansion rate than copper).
Regarding claim 3, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 1, wherein, in the signal via hole, the first metal material has a first thickness, the second metal material has a second thickness, and the second thickness of the second metal material is greater than the first thickness of the first metal material (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 3, wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is defined as a total thickness, the first thickness of the first metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 15% to 45%, and the second thickness of the second metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 55% to 85% (See annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 1, wherein the first thermal expansion coefficient of the first metal material and the second thermal expansion coefficient of the second metal material each range from 10 x10-6/K@200C to 40 x10-6/K@200 and a difference between the second thermal expansion coefficient and the first thermal expansion coefficient is not less than 1 x 10-6/K@200C. (The thermal expansion coefficients of Silver and copper fall inherently within those ranges. Also, the prior art used the same materials used in this application, therefore they inherently will exhibit the same properties)
Regarding claim 6, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a second wiring layer (123) formed on a side surface of the insulating dielectric layer (112) away from the first wiring layer (121); wherein the first wiring layer is connected to the first metal material (122), and the second wiring layer is connected to the second metal material (131) (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20240215157 A1, “PARK”) in view of Kung et al. (US 20200043777 A1, “Kung”)
Regarding claim 4, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 3,
In the event that a judicial tribunal finds that PARK fails to disclose wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is defined as a total thickness, the first thickness of the first metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 15% to 45%, and the second thickness of the second metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 55% to 85%, claim 4 is alternately rejected under 103 over PARK in view of Kung.
Kung discloses (Fig. 6) wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is defined as a total thickness (see annotated figure below), the first thickness of the first metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 15% to 45%, and the second thickness of the second metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 55% to 85% (as seen in the annotated figure below, the thickness of metal 1 is 1/3 of the thickness of the via).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PARK and Kung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of circuit board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK to incorporate the teachings of Kung and provide wherein a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is defined as a total thickness (see annotated figure above), the first thickness of the first metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 15% to 45%, and the second thickness of the second metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 55% to 85% (as seen in the annotated figure above, the thickness of metal 1 is 1/3 of the thickness of the via).
REF A discloses the claimed invention except for (?). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness is defined as a total thickness, the first thickness of the first metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 15% to 45%, and the second thickness of the second metal material relative to the total thickness accounts for 55% to 85%, since it has 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. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0050 and 005 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Having this particular range ensure sufficient compressive stress is applied to maintain electrical contact during thermal expansion.
Claim(s) 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20240215157 A1, “PARK”) in view of WADA et al. (US 20150313015 A1, “WADA”).
Regarding claim 7, PARK discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 1, PARK is silent wherein the first metal material has a base portion and a protruding portion formed on the base portion, and a width of the base portion is greater than a width of the protruding portion, wherein the protruding portion is disposed within the signal via hole and does not protrude beyond the signal via hole.
However, WADA discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the first metal material has a base portion and a protruding portion formed on the base portion (see annotated figure below), and a width of the base portion is greater than a width of the protruding portion, wherein the protruding portion is disposed within the signal via hole and does not protrude beyond the signal via hole (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PARK and WADA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of circuit board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PARK to incorporate the teachings of WADA and provide wherein the first metal material has a base portion and a protruding portion formed on the base portion (see annotated figure above), and a width of the base portion is greater than a width of the protruding portion, wherein the protruding portion is disposed within the signal via hole and does not protrude beyond the signal via hole (see annotated figure above). Doing so would improve reliability and the mechanical and electrical connection is stronger and less likely to fail (para [0039] - [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, PARK in view of WADA discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 7, wherein WADA further discloses the base portion is formed on the first wiring layer (L1+41), and the protruding portion (L2) is embedded in the second metal material (T1), so that the first metal material is engaged with the second metal material (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 9, PARK in view of WADA discloses the circuit board structure according to claim 8, wherein a volume shrinkage rate of the first metal material is greater than a volume shrinkage rate of the second metal material, so that the base portion generates a bending stress on the protruding portion when the circuit board structure is cooled down (Since the prior arts used the same materials for metal 1 and metal 2 used in this application, therefore they inherently will exhibit the same properties)
.
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 SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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 on 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847