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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0305154 A1 (Hayashi).
Hayashi discloses, referring primarily to figures 1 and 2, a wiring substrate, comprising: an insulating layer (7) comprising a first layer (R1) and a second layer (R2); and a conductor layer (8, 9) comprising a metal film ([0041]) formed on a surface of the second layer of the insulating layer such that the conductor layer includes a conductor pattern, wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the first layer includes resin (11) and first inorganic particles (13A), that the second layer includes resin (11) and second inorganic particles (13B) at a content rate that is lower than a content rate of the first inorganic particles in the first layer ([0035]), and that a thickness of the first layer is 90% or more of a thickness of the insulating layer ([0034]), and the second layer of the insulating layer is formed such that the second layer includes a composite layer portion (S) and that the composite layer portion includes part of the metal film in the conductor layer formed in gaps between the second inorganic particles and the resin in the second layer [claim 1]. Hayashi does not specifically state that the composite layer portion has a thickness in a range of 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm. However, such a modification would involve a mere change in size, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use the claimed size in the invention of Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure proper anchoring between layers.
Additionally, the modified invention of Hayashi teaches, wherein the conductor layer is formed such that the metal film includes an electroless plating film ([0093]) [claim 5], wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the content rate of the first inorganic particles in the first layer is in a range of 70% to 95% and that the content rate of the second inorganic particles in the second layer is in a range of 40% to 65% ([0034]-[0035]) [claim 6].
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the second layer of the insulating layer is formed such that the part of the metal film in the composite layer has an occupancy rate of 60% or more” [claim 2], would be a similar change in size modification for layer cohesion. Furthermore, this modified invention of Hayashi teaches, wherein the conductor layer is formed such that the metal film includes an electroless plating film ([0093]) [claim 11], wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the content rate of the first inorganic particles in the first layer is in a range of 70% to 95% and that the content rate of the second inorganic particles in the second layer is in a range of 40% to 65% ([0034]-[0035]) [claim 12]. Moreover, the limitations “wherein the conductor layer is formed such that the conductor pattern has a plurality of wiring patterns having a minimum wiring interval in a range of 5 µm to 12 µm [claim 9] and “wherein the conductor layer is formed such that a minimum wiring width of the wiring patterns is in a range of 5 µm to 9 µm” [claim 10] would involve mere change in size modifications for a suitable wiring for high-speed signal transmission.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitations “wherein the conductor layer is formed such that the conductor pattern has a plurality of wiring patterns having a minimum wiring interval in a range of 5 µm to 12 µm [claim 3] and “wherein the conductor layer is formed such that a minimum wiring width of the wiring patterns is in a range of 5 µm to 9 µm” [claim 4] would involve mere change in size modifications for a suitable wiring for high-speed signal transmission. Furthermore, this modified invention of Hayashi teaches, wherein the conductor layer is formed such that the metal film includes an electroless plating film ([0093]) [claims 15, 19], wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the content rate of the first inorganic particles in the first layer is in a range of 70% to 95% and that the content rate of the second inorganic particles in the second layer is in a range of 40% to 65% ([0034]-[0035]) [claims 16, 20].
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3, respectively, above, and further in view of US 2013/0075138 A1 (Yu).
The modified inventions of Hayashi teach the claimed inventions as described above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 3, except the modified inventions of Hayashi do not specifically teach that the first inorganic particles include hollow filler particles [claims 8, 14, 18]. However, such hollow inorganic particles are well known in the art as evidenced by Yu ([0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use the claimed hollow filler particles in the modified inventions of Hayashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet the structural requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 states the limitation “wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the surface of the second layer has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.15 µm.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claim 13 states the limitation “wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the surface of the second layer has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.15 µm.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claim 17 states the limitation “wherein the insulating layer is formed such that the surface of the second layer has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a range of 0.05 µm to 0.15 µm.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 M-F.
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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847