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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on April 22, 2024 and August 7, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada (JP 2001-060589; cited in the IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Hamada discloses a wiring board (see figure 3) comprising: an insulation layer (202); a groove (203) located at an upper surface of the insulation layer (202); a recessed portion (203, right side) located at the upper surface of the insulation layer (202) and having a width wider than the groove (see figure 3); an underlying metal layer (205) located at an inner surface of the groove and an inner surface of the recessed portion (see figure 3); a first wiring conductor (206) located on the underlying metal layer (205) to fill the groove; and a second wiring conductor (211) located on the underlying metal layer (205) to fill the recessed portion (203) and having a width wider than the first wiring conductor (see figure 3g), wherein the second wiring conductor (211) comprises a first portion and a second portion located adjacent to and integrally with the first portion, and a plurality of voids (created by electroplating) are located at a boundary between the first portion and the second portion (paragraph 0031-0038).
Regarding claim 2, Hamada discloses the wiring board (see figure 3), wherein the first portion is a first electrolytic plating metal (TaN; paragraph 0031), and the second portion is a second electrolytic plating metal (Cu: paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Hamada discloses the wiring board (see figure 3), wherein at least a part of the first portion and of the second portion (see figure 3) located with the boundary interposed therebetween contains a continuous crystal (see figure 3; paragraph 0031-0037).
Regarding claim 7, Hamada discloses a manufacturing method for a wiring board (see figure 3), the manufacturing method comprising: forming a groove (203) and a recessed portion (203 right side) having a metal layer (205) exposed from the plating resist; removing the plating resist from on top of the underlying metal layer (205); forming a second electrolytic plating layer (211) on the first electrolytic plating layer and on the underlying metal layer (205); and removing portions of the first electrolytic plating layer (206), the second electrolytic plating layer (211), and the underlying metal layer (205) to form a first wiring conductor that fills the groove (see figure 3) and is made of a first electrolytic plating metal derived from the first electrolytic plating layer or a second electrolytic plating metal derived from the second electrolytic plating layer, and a second wiring conductor (see figure 3) that fills the recessed portion and is made of the first electrolytic plating metal and the second electrolytic plating metal derived from the second electrolytic plating layer (see figure 3; paragraph 0031-0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (JP 2001-060589; cited in the IDS)
Regarding claim 4, Hamada discloses the wiring board wherein first wiring conductor (206) has a width; but lack the width being of 15µm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Hamada’s first conductor with a width of 15µm or less, since such a 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). Furthermore , Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so the first conductor (206) can have a width of 15µm or less since
Regarding claim 5, Hamada discloses the wiring board wherein second wiring conductor (211) has a width; but lack the width being of 150 µm or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Hamada’s second conductor with a width of 150µm or more, since such a 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). Furthermore , Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so the second conductor (211) can have a width of 150µm or more.
Regarding claim 6, Hamada discloses the claimed invention except for a maximum length of the void being in a range from 50 nm to 1µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the wiring board with a maximum length of the void in a range from 50 nm to 1µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Furthermore , Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so a maximum length of the void can be in a range from 50 nm to 1µm.
Regarding claim 8, Hamada discloses the claimed invention except for the plating resist having a width in a range from 50 µm to 100 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the wiring board with a plating resist having a width in a range from 50 µm to 100µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Furthermore, Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so the plating resist can have a width in a range from 50 µm to 100µm.
Regarding claim 9, Hamada discloses the method wherein first wiring conductor (206) has a width; but lack the width being of 15µm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Hamada’s first wire conductor with a width of 15µm or less, since such a 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). Furthermore , Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so the first wire conductor (206) can have a width of 15µm or less since
Regarding claim 10, Hamada discloses the method, wherein second wiring conductor (211) has a width; but lack the width being of 150 µm or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Hamada’s second wiring conductor with a width of 150µm or more, since such a 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). Furthermore, Hamada teaches in paragraph 0057; “In the present invention, a narrow groove wiring having a pattern width (wiring groove width) of less than 1 μm is used as a narrow groove wiring, but it is needless to say that this range changes depending on conditions of chemical mechanical polishing, a condition for forming a metal film, and the like”, so the second wiring conductor (211) can have a width of 150µm or more.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Narumi (US 9,655,248), Inui (US 8,745,860), Furutani et al (US 9,564,392), Harazono (US 10,172,235) and Yasuda (US 2016/0381793) disclose a wiring board
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Angel R. Estrada at telephone number (571) 272-1973. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30am -5:00pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
December 22, 2025
/ANGEL R ESTRADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841