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 .
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 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.
Drawings
Figures 1-6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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 4, 9-12 and 15-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 contains trade names ABF and BT. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trade names are used to identify/describe a dielectric layer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third side of the second dielectric layer”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the first side of the second dielectric layer”, which has antecedent basis in claim 8 upon which the instant claim depends.
Regarding claims 10-12, they are indefinite due to their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the fourth copper layer”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the sixth copper layer”, which has antecedent basis in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 16-18, they are indefinite due to their dependency on claim 15.
Regarding claims 16-17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third circuits”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the fourth circuits”, which has antecedent basis in claim 15 upon which the instant claims depend.
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second substrate”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the third substrate”, which has antecedent basis in claim 15 upon which the instant claim depends.
Regarding claims 17-18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third side of the third dielectric layer”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the first side of the third dielectric layer”, which has antecedent basis in claim 15 upon which the instant claims depend.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second substrate” in the phrase “between the first substrate and the second substrate, and the third dielectric layer”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner interprets the limitation “between the first substrate and the second substrate, and the third dielectric layer” as “between the first substrate and the third dielectric layer”.
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 of this title, 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 2-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ifis et al. (US20230085035).
Regarding claim 2, Ifis discloses a method of fabricating a printed circuit board (paragraphs 0008 and 0126) comprising: providing a first substrate having a dielectric layer, a first copper on a first side of the dielectric layer, and a second copper layer on a second side of the dielectric layer (layer 112 reads on a dielectric layer, layer 110 reads on a first copper, layer 108 reads on a second copper layer, paragraph 0127 and Fig. 4), wherein the second copper layer is less than 20 microns thick (claim 10); disposing a resist on the second copper layer, selectively removing the resist to expose the second copper layer at circuit locations, while leaving the resist in areas outside of the circuit locations (paragraph 0132); chemically etching to remove the second copper layer that is exposed by the resist, thereby exposing the dielectric layer at the circuit locations (paragraph 0132); laser ablating to form recesses in the dielectric layer that is exposed by the second copper layer, thereby forming recesses in the dielectric layer at the circuit locations (recess 166, paragraph 0132 and Fig. 5); and disposing copper in the recesses to form first circuits that are at least partially embedded in the dielectric layer (paragraph 0138 and Fig. 7). The thickness of the second copper layer disclosed by Ifis encompasses the range recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Ifis discloses wherein the dielectric layer is less than 100 microns (paragraph 0113).
Regarding claim 4, Ifis discloses wherein the dielectric layer is FR4 (epoxy resin and reinforcing glass fibers, paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 5, Ifis discloses wherein disposing copper in the recesses to form first circuits includes electrolessly plating the recesses and then electrolytically plating the recesses (paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 6, Ifis discloses removing the resist remaining on the second layer of copper after disposing copper in the recesses and prior to removing the second layer of copper in areas outside of the circuit locations (paragraphs 0132 and 0135).
Regarding claim 7, Ifis discloses removing the resist remaining on the second layer of copper after laser ablating and prior to disposing copper in the recesses (paragraphs 0132 and 0138).
Regarding claim 13, Ifis discloses disposing a third resist on the first copper layer wherein the first copper layer is less than 20 microns thick (paragraph 0135 and claim 10); selectively removing the third resist to expose the first copper layer at third circuit locations, while leaving the third resist in areas outside of the third circuit locations (paragraph 0135); chemically etching to remove the first copper layer that is exposed by the third resist, thereby exposing the dielectric layer at the third circuit locations (paragraph 0135); laser ablating to form second recesses in the dielectric layer that is exposed by the first copper layer, thereby forming the second recesses in the dielectric layer at the third circuit locations (paragraph 0135 and Fig. 17); and disposing copper in the second recesses of the dielectric layer to form third circuits that are at least partially embedded in the dielectric layer (paragraph 0159 and Fig. 19). The thickness of the first copper layer disclosed by Ifis encompasses the range recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Ifis discloses wherein the third circuits are disposed opposite areas of the dielectric layer in which no first circuits are present (Fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 15-18 are 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, and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: laminating the first substrate to a first side of a core with a first fusion layer disposed between the first substrate and the first side of the core; and laminating the second substrate to a second side of the core with a second fusion layer disposed between the second substrate and the second side of the core, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 9-12, they are dependents of claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: laminating the third substrate to the first substrate with a fusion layer therebetween such that the second side of the dielectric layer of the first substrate faces the second side of the third dielectric layer of the third substrate, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 16-18, they are dependents of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bahl et al. (US20190014667) discloses a method of fabricating a printed circuit board comprising a sequence of steps including a laser drilling step, removing the foil backing step, electroless plating step, patterned resist step, electroplating step, resist strip step, tin plate step, and copper etch step. Rathburn (US20160212862) discloses a method of fabricating a printed circuit board comprising: providing a first substrate with a first major surface having a seed layer of a conductive material; depositing a first resist layer on the seed layer of conductive material; processing the first resist layer to create a plurality of first recesses corresponding to a desired first circuitry layer, the first recesses exposing portions of the seed layer of conductive material; electroplating the first substrate to create first conductive traces defined by the first recesses, wherein the seed layer of conductive material acts as an electrical bus for the, electroplating process; removing the first resist layer to reveal the first conductive traces; etching the first substrate to remove exposed portions of the seed layer of conductive material adjacent the first conductive traces, wherein an unetched portion of the seed layer of conductive material remains between the first conductive traces and the first substrate; and fusion bonding a first LCP layer to the first major surface of the first substrate to encapsulate the first conductive traces in an LCP material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713