CTNF 18/686,337 CTNF 89973 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-010890A (of record), hereafter ‘890, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0246502, hereafter ‘502 . Regarding claim 1, ‘890 discloses (Figs. 1a, 1b, par. [0011]) an electronic element mounting substrate (par. [0006]) comprising: a base [4] having a rectangular shape in a plan view and comprising an element mounting portion [4b] on which an element [10] is mounted; a first frame portion (bottom 2 layers of the frame [2]) located on an upper surface of the base [4]; and a second frame portion (top layer of the three layers of the frame [2]) located on an upper surface of the first frame portion, wherein the first frame portion comprises at least one set of a first protrusion portion and a second protrusion portion each protruding further than the second frame portion to a side of the element mounting portion (Fig. 1b, bottom 2 layers of the frame [2] “protrude” further toward the element [10] than the top layer of the frame [2]). ‘890 fails to explicitly disclose: a protrusion width of the first protrusion portion is larger than a protrusion width of the second protrusion portion, and a distance between the first protrusion portion and the element mounting portion is smaller than a distance between the second protrusion portion and the element mounting portion. However, these limitations are obvious over ‘502. Specifically, ‘502 discloses a first protrusion portion [34a] and a second protrusion portion [S2]. a distance (Fig. 13) between the first protrusion portion [34a] and the element mounting portion (area under [40]) is smaller than a distance between the second protrusion portion [S2] and the element mounting portion ([34a] serve as guiding rails for the chip [40]). The limitation “a protrusion width of the first protrusion portion is larger than a protrusion width of the second protrusion portion” is obvious over ‘502 because it includes an overlapping range: When the inclination angle is 60 degrees (Fig. 5, par. [0087]) and the height of the cavity is 100 um (par. [0085]), the second protrusion [S2] width is 50 um, less than the first protrusion width (60 um, par. [0085]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP, 2144.05.I) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify protrusions and protrusion widths of ‘890 with the teachings of ‘502, because the method of ‘502 results in a better alignment of the electrical component Regarding claim 2, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Figs 1a, 1b, par. [0014]) wherein the base [4] is constituted by at least one insulation layer, and a surface of the insulation layer located at an uppermost layer is exposed. Regarding claim 3, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Figs 1a, 1b) wherein a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the base is a thickness direction, and a thickness of the first frame portion is larger than a thickness of the second frame portion (these are equal thickness laminated ceramic sheets, see Fig. 1b, par. [0049]-[0054] is a standard lamination of equal thickness insulating sheets). Regarding claim 4, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Figs 1a, 1b) wherein the first frame portion (bottom 2 layers of the frame [2]) is constituted by a plurality of insulation layers, and inner side surfaces of the plurality of insulation layers coincide with each other in a plan view (Fig. 1b, par. [0049]- [0054]). Regarding claim 7, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘502 further discloses (Figs 5,6) wherein at least one of an inner side surface [S2] of the first frame portion or an inner side surface of the second frame portion is inclined with respect to a bottom surface of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify ‘890 with inclined side surfaces of ‘502 to facilitate pore precise alignment. Regarding claim 8, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Figs 1a, 1b, this limitation merely defines a thickness direction) wherein a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the base is a thickness direction. ‘890 in view of ‘502 fails to explicitly disclose a thickness of an inner side surface of the first frame portion is larger than a thickness of an outer side surface of the first frame portion. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the ratio of thicknesses of inner and outer side surfaces of the first frame portion from approximately equal to the thickness of an inner side surface being larger than a thickness of an outer side surface because these ranges touch, and overlapping or touching ranges are normally considered obvious (MPEP, 2144.05.I, and case law therein). Furthermore, the claim differs from prior art in that the relative dimension of an inner side surface of the first frame portion (thickness) is larger than the thickness of the outer side surface. Modifying relative dimensions such as thicknesses is normally considered to be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP, latest edition, 2144.04.IV.A, and case law therein) Regarding claim 9, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (par. [0021], Fig.1) wherein a shape of an opening portion of the first frame portion is a rectangular shape. The limitation “a distance between a short side of the opening portion and the element mounting portion is larger than a distance between a long side of the opening portion and the element mounting portion” is obvious over the combination of references, because it would be satisfied for a configuration of Fig. 13 with a modification from square to rectangular shape. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify ‘890 in view of ‘502 with the distances as claimed because such a modification merely modifies relative dimensions, which is normally considered within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.04.IV.A, and case law therein) Regarding claim 10, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Fig. 1b) an element [10]. Regarding claim 11, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (par. [0017], an integrated circuit element includes heat generating portion) wherein the element comprises a heat generating portion. The limitation “the heat generating portion is located at a position closer to the second protrusion portion than to the first protrusion portion” is obvious over ‘890 in view of ‘502 because it can be obtained by rearrangement of parts (e.g., integrated circuits inside the chip), which is normally within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP, latest Edition, 2144.VI.C. Regarding claim 12, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 further discloses (Figs 4a, 4b) a lid [12] located above the electronic device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-010890A (of record), hereafter ‘890, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0246502, hereafter ‘502, and further in view of KR20170067472, hereafter ‘472 (of record) . Regarding claim 5, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 in view of ‘502 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base comprises an insulating film at a position at which the upper surface of the base and an inner edge of the first frame portion overlap with each other. However, ‘472 discloses (Fig. 1, par. [0023]) wherein the base [10] comprises an insulating film [50] at a position at which the upper surface of the base and an inner edge of the first frame portion [30] overlap with each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to include an insulating film in the element cavity of ‘890 in view of ‘502, as taught by ‘472 for the purpose of insulating electrical connections and preventing short circuits. Regarding claim 6, ‘890 in view of ‘502 discloses everything as applied above. ‘890 in view of ‘502 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first frame portion comprises an insulating film at a position at which the upper surface of the first frame portion and an inner edge of the second frame portion overlap with each other. However, ‘472 discloses wherein the first frame portion [10] comprises an insulating film [50] at a position at which the upper surface of the first frame portion [10] and an inner edge [35] of the second frame portion [30] overlap with each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to include an insulating film in the element cavity of ‘890 in view of ‘502, as taught by ‘472 for the purpose of insulating electrical connections and preventing short circuits. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm. 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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /VICTOR V BARZYKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/686,337 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights