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 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon review of the arguments, the arguments are drawn to an embodiment not used for the basis of the rejected claims. The arguments that the core layers 2 correspond to the inner layers as shown in Fig. 1 of Knickerbocker is not consistent with the original and current rejection of the claims. While it is true, Fig. 1 demonstrates the core layer 2 located between build-up layers 4, making the core layer an inner layer, figure 2 as applied to the claims demonstrates the alternative, where the build-up layers are sandwiched between core layers 2, making the build-up layers the inner layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 20122 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knickerbocker (US 20080217748 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20220359227 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 Knickerbocker teaches an assembly comprising:
a support 9, and
a wiring board 8 on the support, wherein the wiring board comprises:
a first surface layer 2 on the support, one or more inner layers on the first surface layer, and
a second surface layer 2 on the one or more inner layers, each of the one or more inner layers 4 comprises a first organic insulating resin,
each of the first surface layer 2 and the second surface layer 2 comprises a second organic insulating material 2,
the second organic insulating material 2 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 40 ppm/K or lower (¶25 –“For example, the core 2 with a low CTE of about two to four ppm”, and
the second organic insulating material 2 has the coefficient of thermal expansion lower than that of the first organic insulating material 4 (¶25- “the build-up layers 4 having a CTE of about eighteen ppm”).
Note: Because Figure 2 utilizes the exact same material composition as the varied arrangement in Figure 1, the resulting coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) values remain identical. Consequently, this configuration would be readily apparent to a PHOSITA
Knickerbocker is merely silent upon stating the organic insulating materials are specifically a “resin”. However, Knickerbocker discloses that they are organic insulating materials, such as polyimide. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect these organic insulating materials to be a resin because a resin is a well-known class of organic insulating materials commonly used in the art of electrical isolation.
This is supported by Watanabe et al., which explicitly teaches that microelectronic dielectric materials routinely comprise a “ any suitable photosensitive insulating resin such as PI (polyimide)” (¶120).
In view of MPEP §2144.04, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to select a known material within a known class of materials for its intended purpose. Selecting a specific organic resin to serve as Knickerbocker’s organic insulating layers amounts to nothing more than a routine choice of a familiar, industry-standard material that would perform its expected function and produce no unexpected results.
CLAIM 3. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly, of claim 1, wherein the support is a glass substrate (Watanabe ¶88, ¶113 glass is a conventional substrate material, and would be a expected to be included in the broad “ceramic” genus as disclosed in Knickerbocker.)
CLAIM 4. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly, of claim 1, wherein wiring in the wiring board or vias to connect portions of the wiring are made of copper or an alloy containing copper; and portions of a surface of the first or second organic insulating resin, with which the wiring or the vias are in contact, are provided with respective portions of a barrier metal layer (Knickerbocker ¶8-11 – Copper is a conventional conductive material selected for wiring in the microelectronic art.).
CLAIM 6. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly, of claim 1, further comprising a release layer (e.g. solder balls) between the support and the wiring board; and an intermediate layer between the wiring board and the release layer (Knickerbocker Fig. 2 – Note: functional language does not impart any clear structural distinction. Solder may be reflowed inherently allowing the ability to “release”.).
CLAIM 20. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly of claim 1, wherein the second organic insulating resin 2 has the coefficient of thermal expansion from 9 ppm/K to 40 ppm/K.
Knickerbocker teaches low CTE core layers containing fiber/particle fillers. The CTE of the core is less than or equal to 12 ppm ¶23, and specifically down to about 2 to 4 ppm ¶25.
Knickerbocker teaches organic insulators with a CTE in the range of 20 to 60 ppm, depending on added fillers or chemistry ¶8. Fillers are omitted in certain build-up layers to prevent shorting at fine pitches ¶11.
Knickerbocker aims to lower the combined CTE of the wiring board by utilizing low/intermediate-CTE cores with fillers and higher-CTE build-up layers without fillers.
Knickerbocker explicitly discloses a build-up layer CTE range of 20–60 ppm and a core layer CTE range down to 2–12 ppm (and up to the organic insulator baseline). The claimed CTE parameters fall entirely within or overlap these established prior art ranges.
Knickerbocker teaches that CTE is an optimizable/adjustable parameter dependent on filler loading and chemistry (¶8, ¶25).
The CTE of the core and build-up layers constitutes a result-effective variable, balanced to tune the overall thermal expansion of the board to match attached semiconductor devices.
A POSITA would find it obvious to optimize these overlapping ranges through routine experimentation to achieve desired device performance. There is no evidence of record showing that the specific claimed ranges are critical or yield unexpected results. Discovering an optimum or workable range for a result-effective variable is routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 21. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly of claim 1, wherein the second organic insulating resin 2 has the coefficient of thermal expansion from 19 ppm/K to 40 ppm/K.
Knickerbocker teaches low CTE core layers containing fiber/particle fillers. The CTE of the core is less than or equal to 12 ppm ¶23, and specifically down to about 2 to 4 ppm ¶25.
Knickerbocker teaches organic insulators with a CTE in the range of 20 to 60 ppm, depending on added fillers or chemistry ¶8. Fillers are omitted in certain build-up layers to prevent shorting at fine pitches ¶11.
Knickerbocker aims to lower the combined CTE of the wiring board by utilizing low/intermediate-CTE cores with fillers and higher-CTE build-up layers without fillers.
Knickerbocker explicitly discloses a build-up layer CTE range of 20–60 ppm and a core layer CTE range down to 2–12 ppm (and up to the organic insulator baseline). The claimed CTE parameters fall entirely within or overlap these established prior art ranges.
Knickerbocker teaches that CTE is an optimizable/adjustable parameter dependent on filler loading and chemistry (¶8, ¶25).
The CTE of the core and build-up layers constitutes a result-effective variable, balanced to tune the overall thermal expansion of the board to match attached semiconductor devices.
A POSITA would find it obvious to optimize these overlapping ranges through routine experimentation to achieve desired device performance. There is no evidence of record showing that the specific claimed ranges are critical or yield unexpected results. Discovering an optimum or workable range for a result-effective variable is routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 22. Knickerbocker in view of Watanabe teaches a assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more inner layers do not contain a filler and each of the first surface layer and the second surface layer contains a filler (Knickerbocker Fig. 2 & ¶31 – Cores 2 may comprise fillers (“glass fibers”) to lower CTE. Build up layers 4 having the higher CTE are not disclosed to have fillers in embodiment of fig. 2. ¶11 teaches away from using fillers in the build-up layer as they may “cause concerns about electrical shorting of fine pitch wiring and vertical vias. Potential exists for electrical shorting due to glass to organic separations and migrations of conductor shorts. As a pitch between vertical connections is reduced, reliability of this approach decreases.” As such, Knickerbocker teaches fillers in the core layers 2 while leaving the build-up layers 4 free of fillers.) .
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
8/11/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights