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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/07/2024 and 07/18/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Before sending this action, Examiner has called the attorney office with a proposed amendment and left a message. The Attorney do not response to the request.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubin et al. (US 2020/0035604 A1).
Pertaining to claim 1, Rubin et al. discloses A printed circuit board (see figs. 5-6) comprising: a substrate portion (300, see fig. 6) including a first insulating layer (332, see fig. 6), and a first wiring layer (336, see fig. 6) disposed on or in the first insulating layer (332); and a connection structure (the wirings layer and the insulating layer , dielectric layers and pad layers) disposed on or in the substrate portion (300), and including a plurality of first dielectric layers (322, see fig. 6), first (first 326, see fig. 6) and second metal layers (second 326, see fig. 6) respectively disposed on the plurality of first dielectric layers (first 322), a second insulating layer (the second 332, see fig. 6) disposed on the plurality of first dielectric layers (the first 322, see fig. 6), and a second wiring layer (the second 336, see fig. 6) disposed on the second insulating layer (the second 332), wherein each of the plurality of first dielectric layers (the first 322) includes an organic material (see claim 10), and a distance between the first metal layer (the first 326) and the second metal layer (the second 326) is less than a distance between the first metal layer (the first 326) and the second wiring layer (the second 336, see fig. 6).
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2020/0035604 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2017/0271424 A1).
Pertaining to claim 10, Rubin et al. discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer.
However, Hwang et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer, (see paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer in the device of Rubin et al. based on the teachings of Hwang et al. in order to have a high-performance (such as microchips, capacitors, and PCBs) because it allows for optimized performance.
Rubin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer.
However, it would have been on obvious matter of design choice to wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness of the second insulating layer, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2020/0035604 A1) in view of Park (US ‘844 A1).
Pertaining to claim 11, Rubin et al. discloses all claimed limitations except, wherein the first dielectric layer includes a photosensitive resin.
However, Hwang et al. teaches wherein the first dielectric layer includes a photosensitive resin, (see paragraph [0025], lines 6-8).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide wherein the first dielectric layer includes a photosensitive resin in the device of Rubin et al. based on the teachings of Park in dielectric layer offers significant advantages in microelectronics, particularly for advanced semiconductor packaging, redistribution layers (RDL), and 3D integration
Rubin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first dielectric layer includes a photosensitive resin. It would have been on obvious matter of design choice to wherein the first dielectric layer includes a photosensitive resin , since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Pertaining to claim 12, Rubin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for , wherein the first dielectric layer includes the same type of organic material as that of the second insulating layer.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to, wherein the first dielectric layer includes the same type of organic material as that of the second insulating layer, 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 intended use for the purpose of improving the structural, electrical, and manufacturing performance of electronic devices, such as capacitors and transistors. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2020/0035604 A1) in view of Park et al. (US ‘324 A1).
Pertaining to claim 13, Rubin et al. discloses all claimed limitations except, further comprising: an adhesive layer disposed between the substrate portion and the connection structure.
However, Park teaches an adhesive layer disposed between the substrate portion and the connection structure, (see paragraph [0073], lines 1-4).
Therefore, At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adhesive layer disposed between the substrate portion and the connection structure in the device of Rubin et al. based on the teachings of Park in order to improving structural integrity, facilitating manufacturing, and providing environmental protection
Pertaining to claim 14, Rubin et al. discloses all claims limitation except, wherein a wire density of the first wiring layer is less than a wire density of the second wiring layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wire density of the first wiring layer is less than a wire density of the second wiring layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
.
Pertaining to claim 17, Rubin et al. discloses, wherein the second insulating layer (the second 332) is in contact with the first metal layer (the first 326) and the second wiring layer (the second 336).
Pertaining to claim 18, Rubin et al. discloses, wherein a via (324, see fig. 6) disposed in the connection structure (the wirings layer and the insulating layer , dielectric layers and pad layers) and connected to the second wiring layer (the second 336) is tapered in a direction from the second insulating layer (the second 332) to the plurality of first dielectric layer (322), and a via disposed in the substrate portion (300) and connected to the first wiring layer (the first 336) is tapered in a direction the same as the tapered direction of the via (324) disposed in the connection structure (the wirings layer and the insulating layer, dielectric layers and pad layers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 8-9, 15 and 16 and 6-18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 2, the specific limitations of "wherein the first metal layer includes a first metal plate, and a first connection pad spaced apart from the first metal plate, and the second metal layer includes a second metal plate," in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 3-7 and 15 depend from claim 2 and is therefore allowed for at the same reasons.
Referring to claim 8, the specific limitations of " wherein the first metal layer includes a plurality of first metal plates spaced apart from each other, and a plurality of first connection pads spaced apart from the plurality of first metal plates, and the second metal layer includes a plurality of second metal plates spaced apart from each other," in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 9 is depend from claim 8 and is therefore allowed for at the same reasons.
Referring to claim 16, the specific limitations of "a first electronic component connected to a portion of the substrate portion and a portion of the connection structure; and a second electronic component connected to another portion of the substrate portion and another portion of the connection structure," in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 19-20 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A printed circuit board comprising: a substrate portion including a first insulating layer, and a first wiring layer disposed on or in the first insulating layer; and a connection structure disposed on or in the substrate portion, the connection structure including a capacitor portion including a dielectric layer and a first metal layer disposed on or in the dielectric layer, and a wiring portion including a second insulating layer and a second wiring layer disposed on the second insulating layer, wherein the first metal layer includes a pair of metal plates, opposing each other, and the dielectric layer includes an organic material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (US 20100187655-A1), Kim (US 20210242896-A1) and Takubo (US 20020046880-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ANDARGIE M AYCHILLHUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848