DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed March 22, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A drawn to the printed circuit board and Subspecies a drawn to the embodiment shown in Figs. 3-5 of current application, claims 1-4, 6 and 10-12, in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the geometric center” should be replaced with “a geometric center” on line 4 to avoid indefiniteness. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6 and 10-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “traces” recited on line 3 refer to, because (a) the limitation “traces” per se may be broadly interpreted, (b) however, Applicant does not claim “traces” per se, but rather claim that the “traces” are “disposed on a first base layer among the base layers” on line 3, (c) this “first base layer” must be the second base layer 114 shown in Fig. 3 of current application, (d) however, Applicants further claim that “each via pad” is “respectively disposed on a respective base layer of the base layers and” is “electrically connected to the traces” on lines 4-5, (e) it does not appear that the “traces” can be “disposed on a first base layer among the base layers” since the via pads inside the rectangular areas illustrated below do not appear to be electrically connected to the traces shown in Fig. 4 of current application,
PNG
media_image1.png
434
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(f) furthermore, the element indicated by the numeral 130, and the element including 122, 124 and 126 on the right side of Fig. 3 of current application do not appear to be electrically connected to the traces shown in Fig. 4 of current application, either, and (g) therefore, it is not clear what the claimed “traces” recited on line 3 refer to, and how the claimed “traces” can be electrically connected to each via pad respectively disposed on the respective base layer of the base layers.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “traces” recited on line 3 refer to, because (a) Applicants refer to the single element 140 as “a plurality of traces” in paragraph [0064] of current application, and also refer to the 140A, 140B and 140C as “traces” also in the same paragraph [0064] of current application, (b) in this case, it does not appear that the definition of the term “traces” is clear since one element as well as a plurality of elements can be referred to as “traces”, i.e. it is not clear whether a trace or a single trace can be referred to as traces, and whether traces can be referred to as a trace or a single trace, and (c) MPEP 2111.01 stipulates that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, and therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed “traces” should have a shape of a fork with bent prongs as shown in Fig. 4 of current application since otherwise the term “traces” may not be well-defined, and whether a single trace can be referred to as traces and whether traces can be referred to as a trace.
(3) Regarding claims 1 and 11, it is not clear what the “via pads” recited on line 4 of claim 1 and on line 3 of claim 11 refer to, because (a) the limitation “via pads” per se may be broadly interpreted, (b) however, Applicant does not claim “via pads” per se, but rather claim that “each via pad” is “respectively disposed on a respective base layer of the base layers and” is “electrically connected to the traces” on lines 4-5 of claim 1, and “a via pad” is “disposed on each of the plurality of base layers” on lines 3-4 of claim 11, (b) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it does not appear that “each via pad” is “electrically connected to the traces”, (c) therefore, not all “via pads” 122, 124, 126 and 126 shown in Fig. 3 of current application correspond to the claimed “via pads”, (d) in this case, it is not clear what the ”via pads” refer to, and (e) furthermore, it is not clear whether the limitation “a via pad being disposed on each of the plurality of base layers” recited on lines 3-4 of claim 11 suggests that, for example, all the via pads 124 directly in contact with the top surface of the second base layer 114 are actually a single via pad, or “a plurality of via pads” recited on line 3 of claim 11 implies a single via pad 124 out of a plurality of via pads 124.
(4) Also regarding claims 1 and 11, it is not clear what the “through-vias” recited on line 6 of claim 1 and on line 5 of claim 11 refer to, because (a) the limitation “through-vias” per se may be broadly interpreted, (b) however, Applicant does not claim “through-vias” per se, but rather claim that “each through-via” extends “in the vertical direction through a respective base layer of the base layers” on lines 6-7 of claim 1, and “at least one respective through-via of the plurality of through-vias” penetrate “a respective base layer” on lines 5-6 of claim 11, (c) however, while the third through-vias 136 may extend through the third base layer 116, the first through-vias 132 do not extend through or penetrate the first base layer 112 since there are second via pads 124 that are disposed underneath the first through-vias 132 and inside the first base layer 112, (d) in addition, second through-vias 134 do not extend through or penetrate the second base layer 114 since there are third via pads 126 that are disposed underneath the second through-vias 134 and inside the second base layer 114, and (e) therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not appear to be directed to Applicants’ own invention.
(5) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a respective first via pad” recited on line 7 and “a respective second via pad” recited on lines 7-8 suggest, because (a) Applicants do not claim “first via pads” and “second via pads” before claiming “a respective first via pad” and “a respective second via pad”, and (b) therefore, it is not clear what “a respective first via pad” and “a respective second via pad” respectively refers to, and especially what the word “respective” suggests.
(6) Regarding claim 11, it is not clear what the phrase “at least one respective through-via” recited on line 5 refers to, because (a) this limitation does not appear to be grammatically correct especially when there is one through-via “penetrating a respective base layer” as recited on line 6, and (b) in other words, when there is only one through-via that penetrates the respective base layer, the adjective “respective” before “through-via” does not appear to make sense.
(7) Also regarding claim 11, it is not clear whether the limitation “at least one respective through-via of the plurality of through-vias penetrating a respective base layer” recited on lines 5-6 suggests that even one through-via can penetrate all the base layers, which is implied by the limitation cited above.
(8) Further regarding claim 11, it is not clear what the limitation “a respective via pad of the plurality of base layers” recited on lines 6-7 suggests, and whether this limitation suggests that there is only one via pad for each of the plurality of base layers.
(9) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “the same dimensions” recited on line 11 refer to, because (a) Applicants do not even claim “the same dimension” of the “at least two sub-shapes”, or a single dimension, and (b) when what “the same dimension” of the “at least two sub-shapes” is not clear, it is not clear what “the same dimensions” of the “at least two sub-shapes”.
(10) Further regarding claims 1 and 11, it is not clear how the “at least two sub-shapes” can be “arranged around a center point of a respective via pad in a partially overlapping manner” as recited on lines 10-12 of claim 1, and “a plurality of sub-shapes” can be “arranged based on a center point of the respective via pad” as recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1, because (a) a shape or shapes is/are not something that can be “arranged” in the first place, and (b) it is not clear what the phrase “arranged based on” implies since it appears that Applicant claims that “a center point of the respective via pad” is selected first, and then the sub-shapes are arranged in claim 11, which does not appear to make sense.
(11) Still further regarding claims 1 and 11, it is not clear what the phrase “in a partially overlapping manner” recited on lines 11-12 of claim 1 and on lines 9-10 of claim 11 suggests, because (a) for Applicants to claim the phrase, Applicants first need to claim which two elements or features partially overlap with each other, and (b) it is not clear whether the phrase cited above suggests that (i) each via pad partially overlaps with the shape, (ii) each via pad partially overlaps with the plurality of sub-shapes, (iii) each via pad partially overlaps with the center point, (iv) each sub-shape partially overlaps with the other sub-shapes, etc.
(12) Still further regarding claim 11, it is not clear what the limitation “a group of through-vias are in contact with the respective via pad in a manner corresponding to the plurality of sub-shapes” recited on lines 10-11 suggests, because (a) it is not clear what the phrase “in a manner corresponding to the plurality of sub-shapes” suggests since the plurality of sub-shapes do not have any specific contacting manner, and (b) it is not clear whether the limitation cited above suggests that the claimed plurality of sub-shapes are in contact with unclaimed and unspecified element(s) in a certain manner, and if that is the case, Applicant first needs to claim what the unclaimed and unspecified contacting manner is.
(13) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “angular spacing” recited on line 12 suggests, and what the “regular angular spacing” refers to, because (a) an angle is not associated with a line, and therefore, two angles would not form a “spacing”, and (b) it is not clear what the “regular angular spacing” refers to since, not only that the “angular spacing” is not well-defined, it is not clear what the “regular” angular spacing refers to, and whether the “regular” implies “the same”, “substantially the same” or “almost the same”.
(14) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “each of the via pads is in contact with at least two of the respective through-vias” recited on line 13 suggests, because (a) the via pads inside the illustrated rectangular areas below are not “in contact with the at least two of the respective through-vias”, and
PNG
media_image2.png
434
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) therefore, it appears that claim 1 is not directed to Applicant’s invention.
(15) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “the respective through-vias” recited on line 13 refer to, because (a) Applicants do not claim “respective through-vias” before claiming “the respective through-vias”, (b) as discussed above, “the respective through-vias” do not appear to include all the through-vias as illustrated above, and (c) therefore, the limitation “the respective through-vias” lacks the antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 10 depend on claim 1, and claim 12 depends on claim 11, and therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 10 and 12 are also indefinite.
(16) Regarding claim 10, it is not clear what “a maximum diameter” of the via pads refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether “a maximum diameter” of the via pads suggests that the via pads have a plurality of diameters in a single printed circuit board, and the claimed “a maximum diameter” is the maximum diameter of the plurality of diameters in the single printed circuit board, and (b) on the other hand, it is not clear whether “a maximum diameter” of the via pads suggests that, when a plurality of printed circuit boards are manufactured, each of the via pads in the same printed circuit board has the same diameter, and the maximum diameter of the via pads is a maximum diameter of the via pads in one of the plurality of printed circuit boards.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11 and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (US 9,655,233)
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Nakagawa discloses a printed circuit board (Figs. 1 and 2) , because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim what the “printed circuit board” refers to, (b) Applicant’s printed circuit board recited in claim 1 appears to be a regular composite substrate without any specific feature or features associated with the claimed printed circuit board, and (c) if the claimed printed circuit board requires elements other than what is recited in claim 1, then claim 1 would be further indefinite for not claiming an essential or critical feature to the practice of the claimed invention, comprising: base layers (plurality of layers including one/some/all of three lower buildup insulating layers 5, core insulating plate 4 and one/some/all of three upper buildup insulating layers 5 in Fig. 1) (col. 5, lines 41-43) stacked in a vertical direction from a lowermost layer to an uppermost layer; traces (11; strip-shaped wiring conductors in Fig. 2) (col. 6, lines 44-45) disposed on a first base layer among the base layers, because the preposition “on” does not necessarily suggest “directly on”; via pads (plurality of core wiring conductor 8 and buildup wiring conductors 9) (col. 5, lines 58 and 60) with each via pad respectively disposed on a respective base layer of the base layers and electrically connected to the traces, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections; and through-vias (vertical conductors inside through-holes 6 and via-holes 7) (col. 5, lines 47 and 54) with each through-via extending in the vertical direction through a respective base layer of the base layers to electrically connect a respective first via pad of the via pads to a respective second via pad of the via pads, because this limitation is also indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, wherein the respective first via pad and the respective second via pad are positioned at different vertical levels, because two different via pads at different levels can be selected to satisfy this limitation, wherein each via pad of the via pads (8 and 9) has a shape comprising at least two sub-shapes having the same dimensions and that are arranged around a center point of a respective via pad in a partially overlapping manner with regular angular spacing between adjacent sub-shapes, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) Applicant does not specifically claim whether the claimed “sub-shapes” are outer boundaries of each via pad, and therefore, arbitrary sub-shapes inside each via pad can be selected to meet this limitation, and wherein each of the via pads is in contact with at least two of the respective through-vias, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 1), wherein a via hole (6 or 7) is formed at each center point of at least two of the sub-shapes, and the through-vias (vertical conductors inside 6 and 7) are each respectively disposed in a respective via hole (claim 2), wherein a first via pad (8 or 9) among the via pads (8 and 9) is electrically or physically connected to at least two traces among the traces (11) (claim 3), and center points of each sub-shape of the at least two sub-shapes of each of the via pads (8 and 9)) correspond to vertices of an imaginary regular N-polygon, and the center point of the via pad (8 or 9) corresponds to the geometric center of the imaginary regular N-polygon (claim 6).
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nakagawa discloses a printed circuit board (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a board base comprising a plurality of base layers (4 and 5); a plurality of via pads (8 and 9) with a via pad being disposed on each of the plurality of base layers; and a plurality of through-vias (6 and 7) with at least one respective through-via of the plurality of through-vias penetrating a respective base layer and making contact with a respective via pad of the plurality of base layers, wherein each via pad of the plurality of via pads has a shape in which a plurality of sub shapes are arranged based on a center point of the respective via pad in a partially overlapping manner, and a group of through-vias (6 and 7) are in contact with the respective via pad (8 and 9) in a manner corresponding to the plurality of sub-shapes (claim 11), wherein a plurality of traces (11) are connected to a first via pad of the plurality of via pads, and through-vias of the plurality of through-vias that are connected to the via pad and the plurality of traces are matched to each other (claim 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US 11,510,318)
Chen et al. (US 12,469,812)
Kim et al. (US 10,966,311)
Preda et al. (US 12,266,598)
Zu et al. (US 2017/0229407)
Zu et al. (US 10,410,984)
Liu (US 8,119,931)
Biddle et al. (US 9,137,887)
Benedict et al. (US 11,937,373)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights