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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the REMARKS, “[0031] of Yamano particularly indicates that “when an insulating member such as a glass member is used, it is not necessary to form the insulating layer 53” and argues on pages 8-9 of the REMARKS “Correlating the teachings of paragraphs [0031] and [0076] of Yamato, if the base member 51 is glass and the insulating layer 53 is excluded from the substrate 120 of Yamato, then an upper surface of the conductive core member 123 would be coplanar with the upper surface of the base member 51, and would not be disposed on a level between a center of the base member 51 and the upper surface of the base member 51”. Similar arguments were made by the Applicant on page 10 of the REMARKS, with respect to claim 12. The Office respectfully disagrees. Note that the claim states “printed circuit board comprising” and “wherein the insulating layer includes a glass substrate”. The claim language does not state “consisting of” but rather uses “comprising” and “includes” and “including”, which do not preclude other elements. The Office Action states the insulating layer is formed from both 51 and 53 which includes or comprises the glass material (as taught by [0054-0055]). As stated by the office action, the length of the hole 122 as well as the thickness of layer 53 is together greater than the length of the wire 123. As Yamano states that the lower surface of the metal wire is connected to 64 (see [0080] and see Fig 34) and as the upper end does not extend all the way to the uppermost surface of 51 and 53 (see [0076] and Fig 34), the claim limitations are met by the previously cited prior art(s). Note that the Applicant has not provided any criticality for the glass material (see Applicant’s Specification, pages 13-15, [0031-0032]). Further explicit language, further limiting the structure of the invention, is suggested by the Office, such as “consisting of”. Furthermore, Yamano (at [0031]) states “when an insulating member such as a glass member is used, it is not necessary to form the insulating layer 53”, but this language does not explicitly prevent the addition of an insulating layer 53, especially a glass material 53 as taught by Yamano. The language of “not necessary” only provides an option of not having the insulating layer, and even this is only when the substrate is only glass, which is not claimed; however the current claim language does not preclude the addition of an insulating layer. As the claimed insulating layer is being represented by Yamano’s 51 and 53, and as the claimed structure does not preclude Yamano’s 51 and 53 from representing the claimed insulating layer, the claimed subject matter is still being met by the presented prior art references.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the REMARKS, “Shueh, relied upon in the rejection of claim 8 to teach the claim limitation requiring that the metal wire includes an alloy including at least one of copper (Cu), gold (Au), silver (Ag), or palladium (Pd), fails to teach any structure analogous to the claimed metal via ("a single layer filling the through-hole and covering the metal wire, wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the metal via are substantially coplanar with the upper surface and the lower surface of the insulating layer") much less a metal via including copper”. The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Shueh “fails to teach any structure analogous to the claimed metal via, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Yamano already teaches of a metal wire within a via which is filled with conductive metal. Shueh is used to teach specific materials. As seen by Shueh, a conductive solid ([0070-0072]) metal ([0070-0072]) material (13) comprising copper at least partially fills a hole (H), and which has an alloy wire (12) within. Shueh states in [0072] that the conductive material 13 can be copper: “the material of each conductive member 13 can comprise, for example, gold, tin, copper, silver, or any combination thereof, or an alloy of their combinations (e.g. an alloy containing tin, bismuth, copper and silver), and this disclosure is not limited thereto”. Shueh teaches of a copper wire (12; [0070] “the material of each conductive wire 12 can be a metal wire, such as gold, copper, aluminum, or any combination thereof, or any alloy thereof”) in a hole with copper material (13; [0072]). Shueh is relied upon for teaching the materials of the conductive components. Yamano already teaches the substrate comprising a conductive metal wire and conductive single layer filling a through hole forming a via. Yamano already teaches the material for the glass material. The combination of Yamano in view of Shueh teaches the limitations of the claim language. Note that the Applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed conductive material (see Applicant’s Specification, page 16, [0034-0035]). Applicant states in Applicant’s Specification [0034-0035] “metal via 140 may include a metallic material. The metallic material may include copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), tin (Sn), gold (Au), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), titanium (Ti), and/or alloys thereof. For example, the first metal layer M1 of the metal via 140 may include the aforementioned metal material, and preferably may include copper (Cu), but the present disclosure is not limited thereto” and “metal wire 150 may include a metal material. The metal material may include copper (Cu), gold (Au), silver (Ag), palladium (Pd), and/or alloys thereof. For example, the metal wire 150 may include a palladium (Pd)-copper (Cu) alloy, but is not limited thereto”. Further explicit language is suggested by the Office, such as “consisting of”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 19 and 20 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.
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) 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamano discloses a discloses a printed circuit board (Fig 34) comprising: an insulating layer (51,53) including a glass substrate (51,53; [0031,0054-0055] “glass member”, “SiO2”; note that the Applicant states in Applicant’s Specification p. 14, [0031] “glass substrate may include glass that is an amorphous solid. Glass may include, for example, pure silicon dioxide (about 100% SiO2), soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, and alumino-silicate glass. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto, and alternative glass materials, such as fluorine glass, phosphoric acid glass, chalcogen glass, and the like, may also be used as materials”) having a through-hole (122); a metal wire (123) disposed inside the through-hole; a first metal layer (124) filling the through-hole and covering the metal wire (123); a first seed metal layer (128) disposed on and substantially coplanar with an upper surface of each of the insulating layer (51,53) and the first metal layer (124), wherein a lower surface of the first seed metal layer (128) is spaced apart from an upper surface of the metal wire (123) in a thickness direction; a second seed metal layer (64) disposed on and substantially coplanar with a lower surface of each of the insulating layer (51,53), the first metal layer (124), and the metal wire (123); a second metal layer (72) disposed on an upper surface of the first seed metal layer; and a third metal layer (63) disposed on a lower surface of the second seed metal layer.
Regarding Claim 15, Yamano further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 14, wherein the first metal layer (124) is a single layer, and the first metal layer is in contact with a wall surface of the through-hole (122).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) in view of Shueh (US 2022/0210916 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) discloses a printed circuit board (Fig 34) comprising: an insulating layer (51,53; [0030-0031]); a through-hole (122) penetrating between an upper surface (upper surface of 53) and a lower surface (lower surface of 51) of the insulating layer (51,53) opposing in a thickness direction; a metal wire (123; [0078]) disposed inside the through-hole (122), wherein a lower surface (lower surface of 123) of the metal wire (123) is substantially (not exactly; note that this is a relative term; note also that the Applicant’s specification has not provided any criticality for this claimed feature) coplanar (see Fig 34 showing the lower surface of 123 at 64 is shown substantially coplanar to the lower surface of lower 51) with the lower surface of the insulating layer (51,53) and an upper surface (upper surface of 123) of the metal wire (123) is disposed on a level (see Fig 34 showing an upper surface of 123 is lower than an upper surface of upper 53 and above a central thickness of 51) between a center of the insulating layer and the upper surface of the insulating layer based on the thickness direction; and a metal via (124; [0077]), which is a single layer filling the through-hole (122) and covering the metal wire (123), wherein an upper surface and a lower surface of the metal via are substantially (not exactly; note that this is a relative term; note also that the Applicant’s specification has not provided any criticality for this claimed feature) coplanar (as seen in Fig 34, upper and lower surfaces of 124 are shown substantially coplanar, to an extent though not exactly, with the upper surface of 53 and lower surface of 51) with the upper surface and the lower surface of the insulating layer, wherein the insulating layer (51,53) includes a glass substrate ([0031,0054-0055] “glass member”, “SiO2”; note that the Applicant states in Applicant’s Specification p. 14, [0031] “glass substrate may include glass that is an amorphous solid. Glass may include, for example, pure silicon dioxide (about 100% SiO2), soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, and alumino-silicate glass. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto, and alternative glass materials, such as fluorine glass, phosphoric acid glass, chalcogen glass, and the like, may also be used as materials”).
Yamano does not disclose the metal wire includes an alloy including at least one of copper (Cu), gold (Au), silver (Ag), or palladium (Pd), and the metal via includes copper (Cu).
Shueh teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 2), wherein an insulating layer (111) includes a glass substrate ([0066] “glass”), a metal wire includes an alloy ([0070] “alloy thereof”) including at least one of copper (Cu) ([0070] “copper”), gold (Au) ([0070] “gold”), silver (Ag), or palladium (Pd), and the metal via (13; [0072] “copper”) includes copper (Cu).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Yamano, wherein the metal wire includes an alloy including at least one of copper (Cu), gold (Au), silver (Ag), or palladium (Pd), and the metal via includes copper (Cu) as taught by Shueh, in order to provide conduction (Shueh, [0066,0070,0072]) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice such as to prevent tarnishing, provide reliability and to resist corrosion. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 16, [0034-0035], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 1, wherein the metal wire (123) includes a bonding portion (a region or area of 123 close to and affixed to 64; [0038] “bonding”; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”) and a wire portion (a region or area of 123 away from 164; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”) connected to the bonding portion.
Regarding Claim 3, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 2, wherein a lower surface (surface of 123) of the bonding portion (a region or area of 123) is substantially coplanar with the lower surface (as seen in Fig 34, end of 123 is substantially, not exactly, coplanar with 51) of the insulating layer (51,53) and the lower surface of the metal via (124).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 2, wherein an end (upper end of 123) of the wire portion (a region or area of 123; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”; this portion can be centrally located and as the structural limitations of this “portion” are not structurally defined, the end of this portion can be within the middle of 123) is disposed on a level between a center of the insulating layer (51,53) and the upper surface of the insulating layer (upper surface of 53) based on the thickness direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 1, wherein the metal via (124) includes a first metal layer (124; [0040]) but does not include a seed metal layer ([0040]; no seed layer is formed).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 1, further comprising: first and second metal wirings (127,61) disposed on the upper surface and the lower surface of the insulating layer (51,53), respectively, and connected to each other through the metal via (124).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) in view of Shueh (US 2022/0210916 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US 2006/0083895 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamano in view of Shueh teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yamano does not disclose the printed circuit board according to claim 1, wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section.
Ikeda (US 2006/0083895 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), wherein a through-hole (aperture in 40 for 51) is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Shueh, wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section as taught by Ikeda, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via (Ikeda, [0007]), such that the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section. Furthermore it has been held obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the hole wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, pages 18-19, [0039-0041], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Yamano in view of Shueh teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yamano does not disclose the printed circuit board according to claim 1, wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of a lower end thereof is larger than a width of an upper end thereof on a cross-section.
Ikeda (US 2006/0083895 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), wherein a through-hole (aperture in 26 for 53) is tapered so that a width of a lower end thereof is larger than a width of an upper end thereof on a cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Shueh, wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of a lower end thereof is larger than a width of an upper end thereof on a cross-section as taught by Ikeda, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via (Ikeda, [0007]), such that the through-hole is tapered so that a width of a lower end thereof is larger than a width of an upper end thereof on a cross-section. Furthermore it has been held obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the hole wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of a lower end thereof is larger than a width of an upper end thereof on a cross-section, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, pages 18-19, [0039-0041], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) in view of Shueh (US 2022/0210916 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hibino (US 10,420,214 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamano in view of Shueh teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yamano does not disclose the printed circuit board according to claim 1, wherein the through-hole is tapered to both sides so that a width of each of an upper end and a lower end thereof is larger than a width of a certain interior between the upper end and the lower end thereof on a cross-section.
Hibino (US 10,420,214 B2) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 2), wherein a through-hole (24) is tapered to both sides so that a width of each of an upper end (at 24F) and a lower end (24S) thereof is larger than a width of a certain interior (central portion of 24) between the upper end and the lower end thereof on a cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Shueh, wherein the through-hole is tapered to both sides so that a width of each of an upper end and a lower end thereof is larger than a width of a certain interior between the upper end and the lower end thereof on a cross-section as taught by Hibino, in order to allow for laser processing of the substrate from both surfaces, reduce voids and increase reliability (Hibino, Column 2, lines 52-68, Column 3, line 1-Column 4, line 45, Column 6, lines 3-33). Furthermore it has been held obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the hole wherein the through-hole is tapered to both sides so that a width of each of an upper end and a lower end thereof is larger than a width of a certain interior between the upper end and the lower end thereof on a cross-section, in order to allow for laser processing of the substrate from both surfaces, reduce voids and increase reliability. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, pages 18-19, [0039-0041], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Uchiyama (US 2010/0147561 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 12, wherein the metal wire (123) includes a bonding portion (a region or area of 123 close to and affixed to 64; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”) and a wire portion (a region or area of 123 away from 64 and centrally located in 122; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”) connected to the bonding portion.
Yamano does not disclose the bonding portion having a width perpendicular to the thickness direction that is greater than a width of the wire portion.
Uchiyama (US 2010/0147561 A1) teaches of a metal wire (20) includes a bonding portion (a region or area of 20b) and a wire portion (a region or area of 20a) connected to the bonding portion, the bonding portion (portion about 20b) having a width perpendicular to the thickness direction that is greater than a width of the wire portion (portion of 20a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Yamano, wherein the bonding portion having a width perpendicular to the thickness direction that is greater than a width of the wire portion as taught by Uchiyama, in order to enable bonding strength, enable pulling strength, and ensure bonding area (Uchiyama, [0010-0011]). Note that the structural aspects of the claimed “portion” are not structurally defined in the claim language and the two portions can include one another. Note also that the Applicant has not described any criticality for this claimed limitation within the Applicant’s Specification.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Eldridge (US 2002/0117330 A1) and Ebe (US 2012/0031648 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamano discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yamano does not explicitly disclose the printed circuit board according to claim 12, wherein the metal wire includes a palladium (Pd)-copper (Cu) alloy each of the first and second seed metal layers includes copper (Cu), and each of the first to third metal layers includes copper (Cu).
Eldridge (US 2002/0117330 A1) teaches of a metal wire ([0307-0324]; Claims 106,173-181) includes a palladium (Pd)-copper (Cu) alloy ([0324]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Yamano, wherein the metal wire includes a palladium (Pd)-copper (Cu) alloy as taught by Eldridge, in order to prevent tarnishing, provide reliability and resist corrosion (Eldridge, [0561,0562] Claims 106,173-181) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Eldridge wherein each of the first and second seed metal layers includes copper (Cu), and each of the first to third metal layers includes copper (Cu), in order to provide a commonly found conductive material such as copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice such as to prevent tarnishing, provide reliability and to resist corrosion. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 16, [0035], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Ebe (US 2012/0031648 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1) seed metal layers (2a) includes copper (Cu) ([0026]), and metal layers (2b,2c) includes copper (Cu) ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Eldridge, wherein seed metal layers and metal layers include copper as taught by Ebe, in order to provide a solid solution strengthening, prevent crystal grain growth and suppress softening (Ebe, [0026]), and furthermore in order to provide a commonly found conductive material such as copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice such as to prevent tarnishing, provide reliability and to resist corrosion, such that each of the first and second seed metal layers includes copper (Cu), and each of the first to third metal layers includes copper (Cu). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, [0030-0035], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 2006/0097378 A1) in view of Ikeda (US 2006/0083895 A1) and Uchiyama (US 2010/0147561 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamano discloses a printed circuit board (Fig 34) comprising: an insulating layer (51,53; [0030-0031]); a through-hole (122) penetrating between an upper surface (upper surface of 53) and a lower surface (lower surface of 51) of the insulating layer opposing in a thickness direction, the through-hole (122); a first metal component (123) disposed inside the through-hole (122), the first metal component (123) comprising a bonding portion (a region or area of 123 close to and affixed to 64; [0038] “bonding”; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”) and a wire portion (a region or area of 123 away from 64; note that the structural limits or periphery of this claimed “portion”), the bonding portion having a first width (width of 123) in a width direction perpendicular to the thickness direction, and the wire portion having a second width (width of 123 at lower end of 123) in the width direction; and a second metal component (124) filling the through-hole (122) and covering both the first metal component and an entirety of a wall surface of the through-hole (122), wherein a thickness of the first metal component (123) in the thickness direction is larger than (height of 123 is greater than width of 123 and even greater than the width of the hole 122 and greater than the width of lower connection 61) the first width and the second width.
Yamano does not disclose having a tapered shape so that a width of a portion thereof is larger than a width of another portion thereof on a cross-section and the wire portion having a second width in the width direction that is less than the first width.
Ikeda (US 2006/0083895 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), wherein a through-hole (aperture in 40 for 51) is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Yamano, having a tapered shape so that a width of a portion thereof is larger than a width of another portion thereof on a cross-section as taught by Ikeda, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via (Ikeda, [0007]), such that the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section. Furthermore it has been held obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the hole wherein the through-hole is tapered so that a width of an upper end thereof is larger than a width of a lower end thereof on a cross-section, as a tapered via can be more densely arranged than a straight-shaped via. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, pages 18-19, [0039-0041], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Uchiyama (US 2010/0147561 A1) teaches of a first metal component (20), the first metal component (20) comprising a bonding portion (a region or area of 20b) and a wire portion (a region or area of 20a), the bonding portion (20b) having a first width (width of 20b) in a width direction perpendicular to the thickness direction, and the wire portion (20a) having a second width (width of 20a) in the width direction that is less than the first width.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Yamano in view of Ikeda, the wire portion having a second width in the width direction that is less than the first width as taught by Uchiyama, in order to enable bonding strength, enable pulling strength, and ensure bonding area (Uchiyama, [0010-0011]). The combination of Yamano in view of Ikeda and Uchiyama would teaches the combination such that a thickness of the first metal component in the thickness direction is larger than the first width and the second width. Note also that the Applicant has not described any criticality for this claimed limitation within the Applicant’s Specification.
Regarding Claim 18, Yamano further discloses the printed circuit board (Fig 34) according to claim 17, further comprising: first and second metal wirings (61,127) disposed on the upper surface and the lower surface of the insulating layer (51,53), respectively, and connected to each other through the second metal component (124).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights