CTNF 18/648,557 CTNF 96568 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 29 April 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are pending in the application, with claims 18-20 withdrawn. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 May 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shin et al. (KR 101158213 B1), hereinafter referred to as Shin et al., in view of Ryan (US 3,606,677 A), hereinafter referred to as Ryan. Regarding claim 1, Shin et al. teaches a circuit board assembly comprising: PNG media_image1.png 172 368 media_image1.png Greyscale a first substrate (110) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the first substrate having one or more through holes (Figs. 1 and 4 and page 2, second-to-last paragraph: cavity formed through core layer 110) ; a second substrate (150) within the one or more through holes (page 3, third paragraph: insulating layer 150 formed in the core layer 110) , the second substrate (150) fusing to the first substrate (110) using a high temperature-high pressure process (page 3, second-to-last paragraph: insulating layer 150 is laminated) , the second substrate (150) having a first top surface and a pocket (see Fig. 1) ; and one or more devices (140) positioned within the pocket and having a second top surface that is flush with the first surface and the first top surface (see Figs. 1 and 7 and page 3, paragraphs 16 through 19) , the one or more devices (140) bonding to the second substrate (150). Shin et al. does not teach the first surface, the first top surface, and the second top surface being adhesive due to a surface treatment. Ryan does teach that the first surface, the first top surface, and the second top surface may be adhesive due to a surface treatment (column 3, lines 9-11: adhesion of the upper surface of the board may be improved by a surface treatment such as chemical etching, physical abrasion, or the addition of an adhesive film) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the upper surfaces of the first substrate, second substrate, and device of Shin et al. to improve the adhesion of these upper surfaces because such a treatment would improve the adhesion of any conducting or insulating layers formed thereon without obstructing access to the through holes (see Ryan column 1, lines 49-59) . Regarding claim 6, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, wherein the surface treatment is at least one of a laser treatment process; a plasma treatment process; a mechanical treatment process; or a chemical treatment process (Ryan column 3, lines 9-11: adhesion of the upper surface of the board may be improved by a surface treatment such as chemical etching, physical abrasion, or the addition of an adhesive film) . Regarding claim 7, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, further comprising a three dimensional (3D) printed layer fixed to the first surface (110), the first top surface (150), and the second top surface (140) (Fig. 1 and page 3, first paragraph: circuit layer 170 may be formed on the upper surfaces of the core layer 110, the insulating layer 150, and the electronic component 140 by inkjet printing) . Regarding claim 8, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 7, wherein the 3D printed layer includes at least one of: a polymer-based ink; a ceramics-based ink; a metal- based ink (Shin et al. page 3, first paragraph: the ink must include a metal ink in order to print the circuit layer) ; or a carbon-based ink. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. in view of Ryan, in further view of Hsieh et al. (US 20110192568 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hsieh et al . Regarding claim 2, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, but does not teach a cooling assembly bonded to the second surface. Hsieh et al. does teach a cooling assembly (14, 16) bonded to the second surface (132) (Hsieh et al. Fig. 3A and paragraphs 27-28: cold plate 14 and liquid-cooling member 16 disposed on the second, or lower, surface 132 of the circuit board 13) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cooling assembly on the second surface of the circuit board taught by Shin et al. in view of Ryan because the cooling assembly of Hsieh et al. effectively dissipates heat generated by the components on the board without excessively increasing the volume of the package (Hsieh et al. paragraphs 5-6) . Regarding claim 3, Shin et al. in view of Ryan and Hsieh et al. teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, wherein the cooling assembly includes a cold plate (14), wherein the cold plate bonds to the second surface using an electrically insulated material (Hsieh et al. paragraph 29: the cold plate 14 is bonded to the second surface 132 of the circuit board 13 via a thermally-conductive adhesive) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. in view of Ryan, in further view of Schaible et al. (WO 2017089213 A1), hereinafter referred to as Schaible et al . Regarding claim 4, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the first substrate is at least one of: a resin; a polymer; ceramic; glass; an epoxy; or a composite material of one or more of a resin, a polymer, ceramic, glass, or an epoxy. Schaible et al. does teach that the first substrate is at least one of: a resin; a polymer; ceramic; glass; an epoxy; or a composite material of one or more of a resin, a polymer, ceramic, glass, or an epoxy. (page 2, second paragraph: known materials for substrates include ceramics and FR4) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate of Shin et al. in view of Ryan from a ceramic or FR4 as taught by Schaible et al. because 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 engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 5, Shin et al. in view of Ryan teaches the circuit board assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the second substrate is metal-based. Schaible et al. does teach that the second substrate may be metal based (Schaible et al. Fig. 9 and page 5, fifth paragraph: the sub-carrier 20 may be a direct bonded copper substrate) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second substrate of Shin et al. in view of Ryan from a metal-based substrate as taught by Schable et al. because Schaible et al. teaches that DBC substrates are known in the art for being inserted into hybrid substrates under high heat and pressure (see Schaible et al. page 5, final paragraph) and 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 engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9-17 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim a third substrate filling a gap between the first substrate and the second substrate, the third substrate having a third top surface, the third substrate fusing to the first substrate and the second substrate using a high temperature-high pressure process . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Kobayashi et al. (US 20180310396 A1) Chen et al. (US 9349611 B2) Yang et al. (US 20150107882 A1) Nagai et al. (US 20140301054 A1) Kainuma et al. (US 20130285254 A1) Han et al. (US 8184448 B2) Takashima et al. (US 7936567 B2) Bang et al. (US 20080079118 A1) Ogawa et al. (US 6952049 B1) Vu et al. (US 6734534 B1) Iovdalsky et al. (US 6057593 A) McGraw et al. (US 5796164 A) Griswold et al. (US 5422514 A) Shindo et al. (US 5048179 A) Sato et al. (US 3786375 A) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00. 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 J 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. /JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847 /TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights