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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, TW 1527164-B.
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches a package substrate, comprising:
a core board body 514’ having a first side, a second side opposing the first side, and at least one conductive via 518’ connecting the first side and the second side, wherein a thickness of the core board body is less than or equal to 20 micrometers (20-100 micron, page 4 of translation, figure 13);
a first circuit layer 512” formed on the first side of the core board body and electrically connected to the conductive via; and
a second circuit layer 512’ formed on the second side of the core board body and electrically connected to the conductive via (figure 16).
Regarding claim 2, Fu teaches comprising a first build-up structure disposed on the first side of the core board body and on the first circuit layer, wherein the first build-up structure comprises at least one first insulating layer 514” formed on the core board body and a first wiring layer 520 formed on the first insulating layer and electrically connected to the first circuit layer (figure 16).
Regarding claim 4, Fu teaches a second build-up structure disposed on the second side of the core board body and on the second circuit layer, wherein the second build-up structure comprises at least one second insulating layer 514 formed on the core board body and a second wiring layer 512 formed on the second insulating layer and electrically connected to the second circuit layer (figure 16).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Fu fails to teach a thickness of the first insulating layer is less than or equal to 10 micrometers and a thickness of the second insulating layer is less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, TW 1527164-B in view of Yen et al, US Patent 8,628,636.
Regarding claim 6, Fu teaches a method of fabricating a package substrate, comprising:
providing a carrier 400, wherein the carrier comprises a support board body 550 having a metal layer 552, and a substrate 600 is formed on two opposite sides of the support board body, wherein the substrate has a core board body 514, the core board body has a first side and a second side opposing the first side, and the core board body is bonded to the metal layer of the carrier via the second side thereof (via 512 and 510A);
forming a first circuit layer 520 on the first side of the core board body, and forming at least one conductive via 518 connecting the first side and the second side to electrically connect the first circuit layer to the conductive via, wherein a thickness of the core board body is less than or equal to 20 micrometers (20-100 micron, page 4 of translation, figure 13), and removing the carrier (figure 14).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Fu fails to teach a total thickness of the carrier and the substrate is at least 60 micrometers, bonding the first side of the core board body to two opposite sides of a support member, respectively; forming a second circuit layer on the second side of the core board body to electrically connect the second circuit layer to the conductive via; and removing the support member.
However, Yen teaches a generally-known means of forming a completed packaging device, which includes
bonding the first side of the core board body to two opposite sides of a support member 28 or 27, respectively (figure 2F) after removing the carrier 22 (figures 2D-2E), then
forming a second circuit layer 23b on the second side of the core board body 20 to electrically connect the second circuit layer to the conductive via 24 (as labeled in figures 2F-2H). Once this second circuit layer is formed, the unwanted support member is removed (see column 4, lines 43-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yen with that of Fu because the reference of Yen teaches a generally-known means of forming a completed semiconductor package with two sided circuit layers that has a reduced overall size and has an improved strength, and is not easily to be damaged during transportation or packaging, thereby improving the electrical component.
Fu and Yen fail to teach a total thickness of the carrier and the substrate is at least 60 micrometers.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 7, Fu teaches forming a first build-up structure on the first side of the core board body and on the first circuit layer, wherein the first build-up structure comprises at least one first insulating layer 514’ formed on the core board body 514 and a first wiring layer 512” formed on the first insulating layer and electrically connected to the first circuit layer (figure 16).
Regarding claim 8, Fu and Yen fail to teach a thickness of the first insulating layer is less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 9, Fu teaches forming a second build-up structure on the second side of the core board body and on the second circuit layer, wherein the second build-up structure comprises at least one second insulating layer 514 formed on the core board body 514’ and a second wiring layer 512 formed on the second insulating layer and electrically connected to the second circuit layer (figure 16).
Regarding claim 10, Fu and Yen fail to teach a thickness of the second insulating layer is less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights