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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. The Amendments filed August 21st, 2026, in response to the Final Office Action mailed 06/11/2026 are noted.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection(s)
previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 06/11/2026, so the 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ amendments to the claims are noted.
4. Claim 3 is now canceled; Claim 18 is newly-added; Claims 1-2 and 4-18 remain pending in the application.
5. Claims 1-2 and 4-18 have been fully considered in examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on 06/11/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ohata (U.S. PG Pub No US2009/0001404A1) (of record) in view of Ko (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0319284A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohata teaches a substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] comprising:
a first substrate (21) fig. 1B [0064] having a first (top) surface on which an element (30) fig. 1B [0061] is to be mounted, a second (bottom) surface located opposite the first (top) surface, and a first side (left sidewall) surface connecting the first (top) surface and the second (bottom) surface;
a second substrate (14) fig. 1B [0063] having a third (bottom) surface supporting the first substrate (21) and a fourth (top) surface located opposite the third (bottom) surface; and
first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] configured to electrically connect the first surface (top of 21) and the second surface (bottom of 21) and exposed on the first side surface (left sidewall) of the first substrate (21) from the (level of) first surface (top of 21) to the (level of) second surface (bottom of 21).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CA2)][AltContent: textbox (CA1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
409
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1B of Ohata
However, Ohata does not explicitly disclose the second substrate (14) fig. 1B [0063] having a perimeter larger than a perimeter of the first substrate (21) when viewed in plan from a Z-axis direction (plan view not shown).
Ko teaches a substrate [see fig. 1, 0026, 0028] (considered from flipped perspective) comprising the second substrate (106 comprising 202) fig. 2 [0026, 0035] having a perimeter [see fig. 1, 0037] larger than a perimeter [see fig. 1, 0037] of the first substrate (104 comprising 236) fig. 1 [0038] [see fig. 1, 0037] when viewed in plan from a Z-axis direction (see fig. 1).
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 the substrate of Ohata such that the relative perimeters of the upper and lower substrates differ in a top view [0037-0038] in order to reduce the relative size of at least one of the substrates [0003] so as to improve package density and reliability without sacrificing performance [0003, 0005], as taught by Ko.
Regarding claim 4, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Ohata also teaches wherein the first substrate (21) has a rectangular shape (21) fig. 1B [0064], and the first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] are located at (through) respective centers of opposite sides (left/right sides) of the first surface (top of 21).
Regarding claim 5, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Ohata also teaches wherein the first substrate (21) has a rectangular shape (21) fig. 1B [0064], and the first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] are located at (through) opposite corners (left/right corners) of the first surface (top of 21).
Regarding claim 6, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Ohata also teaches wherein when viewed in plan, an angle between a tangent to an outer edge of each of the first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] are located at (through) at an intersection of the outer edge of each of the first conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] are located at (through) and a side of the first surface (top of 21) and the side of the first surface is 90 degrees +/- 20-degrees (assumed to be substantially-right angles, ~ 90 degrees due to perpendicular surfaces between 23A, 23B extending vertically and top of 21 extending horizontally).
Regarding claim 7, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Ohata also teaches wherein at least one of the first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] has a portion overlapping a region where the element (30) fig. 1B [0061] is to be mounted when viewed in plan.
Regarding claim 8, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Ohata also teaches wherein the second substrate (14) fig. 1B [0063] comprises second via conductors (16) fig. 1B [0063] configured to electrically connect the third surface (bottom of 14) and the fourth surface (top of 14), and
at least one of the first via conductors (comprising 23A, 23B bilayers) fig. 1B [0064, 0079] has a portion (midsection) overlapping one of the second via conductors (16) when viewed in plan.
Regarding claim 9, Ohata teaches a package (comprising 1, 40) [0060-0061] comprising:
substrate (1) fig. 1B [0060-0061]; and
a lid (40) fig. 1B [0065].
Regarding claim 10, Ohata in view of Ko teaches an electronic component (comprising 1, 40, 30) fig. 1B [0060-0061] comprising:
the substrate (1) fig. 1B [0060-0061] according to claim 1; and
an element mounted (30 with 13) fig. 1B [0061] on the substrate (1).
Regarding claim 11, Ohata in view of Ko teaches a light emitting device (comprising 1, 40, 30) fig. 1B [0060-0061] (comprising LED 30) comprising:
the package (comprising 1, 40) [0060-0061] according to claim 9; and
an element mounted (30 with 13) fig. 1B [0061] on the substrate (1), wherein the element (30) is a light emitting element (LED [0061]).
Claims 1-2, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0203266A1) (of record) in view of Ko (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0319284A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwai teaches a substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] comprising:
a first substrate (100A) fig. 11 [0096] having a first (top) surface on which an element (“semiconductor chip”) [0099-0100] is to be mounted, a second (bottom) surface located opposite the first (top) surface, and a first side (left sidewall) surface connecting the first (top) surface and the second (bottom) surface (see annotated fig. 11 below);
a second substrate (100 with 170) fig. 11 [0096-0098] larger than the first substrate (100A) (second substrate 100 with 170 is defined as having additional size due to the inclusion of 170, making it larger than 100A) (see annotated fig. 11 below) and having a third (top) surface supporting the first substrate (21) and a fourth (bottom) surface located opposite the third (top) surface; and
first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] (formed of conductive, copper material of 130 [0097, 0100, 0103]) configured to electrically connect [0096-0098] the first surface (top of 100A) and the second surface (bottom of 100A) and exposed on the first side surface (left sidewall) of the first substrate (100A) from the first surface (top of 100A) to the second surface (bottom of 100A) (see annotated fig. 11 of Iwai below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CA2)][AltContent: textbox (CA1)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
578
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 11 of Iwai
However, Iwai does not explicitly disclose the second substrate (100 with 170) having a perimeter larger than a perimeter of the first substrate (100A) when viewed in plan from a Z-axis direction (plan view not shown).
Ko teaches a substrate [see fig. 1, 0026, 0028] (considered from flipped perspective) comprising the second substrate (106 comprising 202) fig. 2 [0026, 0035] having a perimeter [see fig. 1, 0037] larger than a perimeter [see fig. 1, 0037] of the first substrate (104 comprising 236) fig. 1 [0038] [see fig. 1, 0037] when viewed in plan from a Z-axis direction (see fig. 1).
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 the substrate of Iwai such that the relative perimeters of the upper and lower substrates differ in a top view [0037-0038] in order to reduce the relative size of at least one of the substrates [0003] so as to improve package density and reliability without sacrificing performance [0003, 0005], as taught by Ko.
Regarding claim 2, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate [see fig. 1B, 0060] of claim 1. Iwai also wherein a cross-sectional area of the first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] in a cross section (horizontally) parallel to the first surface (top of 100A) increases from (CA1) [see annotated fig. 11 above] the first surface (top of 100A) toward (CA2 at) [see annotated fig. 11 above] the second surface (bottom of 100A) (based on cross-sectional areas CA1, CA2 as defined in annotated fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 12, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 1. Iwai also teaches wherein each of the first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] (formed of conductive, copper material of 130 [0097, 0100, 0103]) (formed of conductive, copper material of 130 [0097, 0100, 0103]) is continuously exposed on (supported by) the first side surface (left sidewall) from the first surface (top of 100A) fig. 11 [0096] to the second surface (bottom of 100A) along an uninterrupted (continuous) length (see annotated fig. 11 of Iwai above).
Regarding claim 14, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 1. Iwai also teaches wherein the first substrate (100A) fig. 11 [0096] is a ceramic substrate (“glass” [0096] described by Iwai as a ceramic [0003. 0068]), and the first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] (formed of conductive, copper material of 130 [0097, 0100, 0103]) (formed of conductive, copper material of 130 [0097, 0100, 0103]) comprise a copper-based conductor (131A formed of 130 material Cu/copper [0103]).
Regarding claim 15, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 1. Iwai also teaches wherein the first substrate is formed by singulating a larger substrate such that the first via conductors are exposed (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] by a cutting process that intersects the first via conductors at the first side surface.
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, they have been considered as “product by process” limitation(s) – process steps that do not yield an identifiable structure in the product. Note that a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al. 227 USPQ 964 (CFAC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein, which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935. (See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 16, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 1. Iwai also teaches further comprising:
second via conductors (lower 130/131A and 140) fig. 11 [0097] configured to electrically connect (“couple”) [0097-0100] the third surface (top of 170 of 100 with 170) fig. 11 [0096-0098] and the fourth surface (bottom of 100 of 100 with 170) fig. 11 [0096-0098].
Regarding claim 17, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 16. Iwai also teaches wherein:
the first side surface (left sidewall) of the first substrate (100A) fig. 11 [0096] is inclined (from bottom to midsection), and an angle between the first side surface (left sidewall of 100A in inclined portion) and the third surface (horizontal plane bottom of 100) is an obtuse angle (left sidewall of 100A from bottom of 100A to midsection clearly forms an angle greater than 90 degrees with horizontal plane),
a cross-sectional area of the first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] in a cross section (horizontally) parallel to the first surface (top of 100A) increases from (CA1) [see annotated fig. 11 above] the first surface (top of 100A) toward (CA2 at) [see annotated fig. 11 above] the second surface (bottom of 100A) (based on cross-sectional areas CA1, CA2 as defined in annotated fig. 11 above), and
at least one of the first via conductors (upper, left 131A) has a portion overlapping one of the second via conductors (140) fig. 11 [0097] when viewed in plan (and corresponding cross-sectional view shown in fig. 11 – evident that 140 would be partially obstructed by upper 131A in plan view).
Regarding claim 18, Iwai in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 2. Iwai also teaches the first side surface (left sidewall) of the first substrate (100A) fig. 11 [0096] is inclined (from bottom to midsection), and an angle between the first side surface (left sidewall of 100A in inclined portion) and the third surface (horizontal plane bottom of 100) is an obtuse angle (left sidewall of 100A from bottom of 100A to midsection clearly forms an angle greater than 90 degrees with horizontal plane).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohata (U.S. PG Pub No US2009/0001404A1) (of record) modified by Ko (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0319284A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohhira (U.S. PG Pub No US2011/0226518A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ohata in view of Ko teaches the substrate (200A) fig. 11 [0096] according to claim 1. However, Ohata in view of Ko does not explicitly disclose wherein each the first via conductors (left, right 131A of 150A) fig. 11 [0096] has a semi-circular shape when viewed in plan from the Z-axis direction (circular instead).
Ohhira teaches a substrate [see fig. 63, 0186] wherein each the first via conductors (60a, 60b) fig. 63 [0096, 0186] has a semi-circular shape [see fig. 63, 0188-0189] when viewed in plan from the Z-axis direction.
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 the via conductive members of Ohata such that they adopt a semi-circular shape [0188-0189] in order to selectively vary of conductive material in the via conductor [0188-0189] for conduction in the package, as taught by Ohhira. However, Ohhira treats the semi-circular shape of the via conductors [0188-0189] as a mere design choice which, in the absence of evidence of the significance of unexpected results, does not constitute a patentable difference over other shape choices [0188-0189] for the vias conductors. (See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newly-added Chou (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0318757A1) teaches another example of a package comprising vias with two substrates having different perimeters in a plan view.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 08/30/2026
Prosecution Insights