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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/26 has been entered.
The amendment filed 3/16/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 2,13 and 24 have been canceled. Claims 28-31 have been added. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-23 and 25-31 remain in the application.
Considering the amendment filed 8/29/25, the New Matter rejection has been withdrawn. Some of the 103 rejections have been maintained while others have been withdrawn, i.e. claims 10 and 11 regarding the filling rate. The following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9 and 28-31 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 29-31, the term “fine” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner suggest deletion of the term “fine” or amending the claims to recite the claimed sized particles. Furthermore, it is noted that claim 9 recites metal fine particles while claims 29-31 recite conductive fine particles. The Examiner suggests keeping the claims consistent with regards to the particles.
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.
Claims 1,3-9,12,14,16,19,20,23,25,26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) further in combination with Casey et al. (5,759,669).
Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches a method of forming a metal thin film in a micro hole by ink jet printing. Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches in Figs. 1A-1G, a substrate (1) with micro holes (11) formed therein and a porous material (3) covering the lower portion of the micro hole (11). Catalyst ink (4) is printed into the hole and is absorbed and dries on the sidewalls of the micro hole (11) and a metal membrane (5) is formed with a plating solution. Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches the diameter of the catalyst droplet is less than the diameter of the holes [0022].
Yang et al. (2006/0121199) fails to teach a discharging step of the ink outside the hole.
Wenke (5,630,272) teaches a similar process whereby the ink is supplied from a front surface through the hole to the outside and then sucked back by vacuum to leave a layer on the sidewalls of the hole (abstract and Fig. 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang et al. (2006/0121199) process to include discharging the catalyst fill as taught by Wenke (5,630,272) with the expectation of success for lining the sidewalls of the hole.
Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) fails to teach the pores of the closing member to be smaller than the droplet size which is smaller than the hole size.
Casey et al. (5,759,669) teaches a similar process whereby an apparatus and method for screening green sheet with via hole using porous backing which absorbs fluids form the screening material which helps control the drying process (abstract, col. 2, lines 43-52). Casey et al. (5,759,669) teaches the pore size small enough to absorb paste solvents and pore size of 1-2 microns (col. 6, lines 47-53) which would make it less than the droplet and hole size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) process to include a porous backing that controls absorption of the solvent/water in the paste as evidenced by Casey et al. (5,759,669) which would be smaller than the hole and droplet size with the expectation of reducing pits and depressions in the fill.
Regarding claims 1,12 and 23, Casey et al. (5,759,669) teaches the pore size of the porous backing film to be less than the droplet and hole size taught by Yang et al. (2006/0121199) as detailed above.
Regarding claims 6,16 and 19, Wenke (5,630,272) teaches forming circuit pattern on both the top (12) and bottom surfaces (13) of the substrate (Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites a viscosity of the ink. The Examiner takes the position that the viscosity of the ink would be a result effective variable optimized by one skilled in the art depending upon the desired application and hence would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof but both the instant invention and the art teach ink jet printing and hence would have similar viscosities to be deposited therefrom.
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches a droplet of 30 microns [0041].
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches a solution including palladium nanoparticle [0041].
Regarding claim 12, Wenke (5,630,272) teaches forming circuit pattern on both the top (12) and bottom surfaces (13) of the substrate (Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 26-40).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches electroless plating [0043],[0051].
Regarding claims 3,14 and 25, Casey et al. (5,759,669) teaches the surface absorption of the porous backing helps in drying and hence would be expected a “wait time” for this to occur.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the claim recites repeating the filling, discharging and drying on the back surface. It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts/steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, Wenke (5,630,272) teaches forming circuit pattern on both the top (12) and bottom surfaces (13) of the substrate (Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches a hole in the substrate prior to filling.
Regarding claim 28, Yang et al. (2006/0121199) teaches filing the hole (Fig. 1D).
Claims 15,17,18,21,22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) further in combination with Casey et al. (5,759,669) still further in view of Hayton et al. (9,985,207).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) in combination with Casey et al. (5,759,669) are incorporated here.
Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272) in combination with Casey et al. (5,759,669) fails to teach forming the hole by laser ablation.
Hayton et al. (9,985,207) teaches a similar process in forming electronic devices whereby holes are formed and filled with metal paste and the holes are formed by laser ablation methods (abstract and col. 6, lines 43-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang et al. (2006/0121199) in combination with Wenke (5,630,272 in combination with Casey et al. (5,759,669) to form the holes by laser ablation as taught by Hayton et al. (9,985,207) with the expectation of forming precise holes therein.
Regarding claims 17,21 and 27, Hayton et al. (9,985,207) teaches electroplating (col. 1, lines 26-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10,11 and 29-31 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the criticality of the ink filling rate that is a ratio of an amount of ink ejected into the hole to an inner hole volume of the hole being 55% to 100% or 100% to 200% as well as the closing member absorbing the conductive fine particles. The prior art teaches filling the holes but no criticality of the filling ratio as well as the closing member absorbing the solvent and not the conductive particles.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3-9,12,14-23 and 25-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach the claimed ink filling rate that is an amount of ink ejected into the hole to an inner volume of the hole (claims 10 and 11) and the closing member absorbing the conductive fine particles (claims 29-31).
The rejection is maintained for claims 1,3-9,12,14-23 and 25-27 as these claims neither recite the ink filling rate nor the closing member absorbing the conductive fine particles and hence the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights