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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) discloses a hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) comprising: an insulating substrate (1440; [0130]); a printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376; [0005-0008]; an insulating base or substrate having at least one conductive layer) disposed on an upper surface (1441) of the insulating substrate (1440) and including at least one through hole (1303) configured to accommodate a surface mount device (170; [0086]); and an adhesive member (1445; [0115,0118,0131,0140] prepreg discussed as having adhesive properties) comprising an adhesive material (1445; [0115,0118,0131,0140] prepreg discussed as having adhesive properties) provided between the insulating substrate (1440) and the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376).
Regarding Claim 3, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the insulating substrate (1440) includes any one of FR-1, FR-3 ([0074]), FR-4 ([0074]), CEM-1 ([0074]), and CEM-3 ([0074]).
Regarding Claim 5, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376) comprises: a base plate (120); and a copper foil layer (110,1376; [0074,0088]) formed on at least one of upper and lower surfaces of the base plate (120).
Regarding Claim 6, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 5, wherein the base plate (140) of the printed circuit board includes any one of FR-1, FR-3 ([0074]), FR-4 ([0074]), CEM-1 ([0074]), and CEM-3 ([0074]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2009/0166080 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Moul discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Moul does not explicitly disclose the hybrid printed circuit board of claim 1, wherein the adhesive member includes no-flow prepreg or bonding sheet.
Matsui (US 2009/0166080 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1) wherein an adhesive member (30; [0031]) includes no-flow prepreg ([0031]) or bonding sheet ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the adhesive member includes no-flow prepreg or bonding sheet as taught by Matsui, in order to provide heat resistance and reliably avoid problems such as resin flow from prepreg during heat-pressure bonding (Matsui, [0031]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazawa (US 2012/0073131 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, The hybrid printed circuit board of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the insulating substrate is at least 0.4 mm.
Moul discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Moul does not disclose the hybrid printed circuit board of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the insulating substrate is at least 0.4 mm.
Miyazawa (US 2012/0073131 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 4), wherein a thickness of an insulating ([0049] “glass epoxy board”) substrate (22) is at least 0.4 mm ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein a thickness of the insulating substrate is at least 0.4 mm as taught by Miyazawa, in order to reduce warpage (Miyazawa, [0005,0049,0050]) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to reduce warpage. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon (US 2020/0144234 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376) comprises a base plate (120) and a copper foil layer (110,1376; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) provided on one surface of the base plate (120).
Moul does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulating substrate is formed of a same insulating material as the base plate.
Jeon (US 2020/0144234 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1A) wherein a printed circuit board (300,400) comprises a base plate (300) and a copper layer (610; [0045]) provided on one surface of a base plate (300), wherein an insulating substrate (100) is formed of a same insulating material ([0052]) as the base plate (300).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the insulating substrate is formed of a same insulating material as the base plate as taught by Jeon, in order to reduce complexity and costs during manufacturing by reusing identical materials, 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 the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 12, 3rd paragraph, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376) comprises a base plate (120) and a copper foil layer (110,1376; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) provided on one surface of the base plate (120).
Moul does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulating substrate is formed of an insulating material different from the base plate.
Jeon (US 2020/0144234 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1A) wherein a printed circuit board (300,400) comprises a base plate (300) and a copper layer (610; [0045]) provided on one surface of a base plate (300), wherein an insulating substrate (100) is formed of an insulating material different ([0052]) from a base plate (100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the insulating substrate is formed of an insulating material different from the base plate as taught by Jeon, in order to provide different dielectric constants and thus provide different dielectric characteristics (Moul, [0089]), 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 the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 12, 3rd paragraph, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 9, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376) comprises a base plate (120) and an upper copper foil layer (110; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) and a lower copper foil layer (1376; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) provided on upper and lower surfaces of the base plate (120), respectively.
Moul does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulating substrate is formed of a same insulating material as the base plate.
Jeon (US 2020/0144234 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1A) wherein a printed circuit board (300,400) comprises a base plate (300) and a copper layer (610; [0045]) provided on one surface of a base plate (300), wherein an insulating substrate (100) is formed of a same insulating material ([0052]) as the base plate (300).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the insulating substrate is formed of a same insulating material as the base plate as taught by Jeon, in order to reduce complexity and costs during manufacturing by reusing identical materials, 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 the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 12, 3rd paragraph, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 10, Moul further discloses the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 14) of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board (1302,110,120,1376) comprises a base plate (120) and an upper copper foil layer (110; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) and a lower copper foil layer (1376; [0074,0088] “copper foil”) provided on upper and lower surfaces of the base plate (120), respectively.
Moul does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulating substrate is formed of an insulating material different from the base plate.
Jeon (US 2020/0144234 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1A) wherein a printed circuit board (300,400) comprises a base plate (300) and a copper layer (610; [0045]) provided on one surface of a base plate (300), wherein an insulating substrate (100) is formed of an insulating material different ([0052]) from a base plate (100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the insulating substrate is formed of an insulating material different from the base plate as taught by Jeon, in order to provide different dielectric constants and thus provide different dielectric characteristics (Moul, [0089]), 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 the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 12, 3rd paragraph, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffin (US 6,208,526 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Moul discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Moul does not disclose the hybrid printed circuit board of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board includes a first printed circuit board and a second printed circuit board that are electrically connected to each other.
Griffin (US 6,208,526 B1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1-3), wherein a printed circuit board (114-120; Column 2, lines 2-26) includes a first printed circuit board (118) and a second printed circuit board (120) that are electrically connected to each other (Abstract, Column 2, lines 2-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, wherein the printed circuit board includes a first printed circuit board and a second printed circuit board that are electrically connected to each other as taught by Griffin, in order to accommodate testing of individual components, prevent discarding of multi-component module assemblies, reduce manufacturing yield problems, conserve space and improve manufacturing yields (Griffin, Column 1, line 31-Column 2, line 26).
Regarding Claim 12, Moul in view of Griffin teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Griffin further teaches the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 1-3) of claim 11, wherein the first printed circuit board (118) includes a first terminal pattern (a pattern is shown in Fig 1-3 at 128,204 on 118; note that the claim has not structurally detailed this patten) formed on an upper surface of the first printed circuit board (118), wherein the second printed circuit board (120) includes a second terminal pattern (a pattern is shown in Fig 1-3 at 128,204 on 120; note that the claim has not structurally detailed this patten) formed on an upper surface of the second printed circuit board (120) corresponding (analogous in function) to the first terminal pattern (128,204 on 118), and wherein the printed circuit board further includes a connection board (104; Column 2, lines 33-44) disposed on upper surfaces of the first terminal pattern (128,204) and the second terminal pattern (128,204) and configured to electrically connect (Abstract, Column 2, lines 2-58) the first terminal pattern (128,204) and the second terminal pattern (128,204).
Regarding Claim 13, Moul in view of Griffin teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Griffin further teaches the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 1-3) of claim 12, wherein the connection board (104; Column 2, lines 33-44) includes a connection pattern (a pattern is shown in Fig 1-3 at 140,136,142,202) configured to connect (Abstract, Column 2, lines 2-58) the first terminal pattern (128,204) and the second terminal pattern (128,204).
Regarding Claim 14, Moul in view of Griffin teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Griffin further teaches the hybrid printed circuit board (Fig 1-3) of claim 11, wherein the first printed circuit board (118) comprises a double-sided printed circuit board (118 is shown having two sides; note that the claim has not structurally detailed the intent of this language), and the second printed circuit board comprises a single-sided printed circuit board (120 is shown having one side; note that the claim has not structurally detailed the intent of this language).
Moul in view of Griffin does not explicitly state that the second printed circuit board comprises only a single-side.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Moul in view of Griffin, wherein the first printed circuit board comprises a double-sided printed circuit board, and the second printed circuit board comprises a single-sided printed circuit board, in order to accommodate testing of individual components, prevent discarding of multi-component module assemblies, reduce manufacturing yield problems, conserve space and improve manufacturing yields, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Please note that in the instant application, page 20, 3rd paragraph – page 21, 2nd paragraph, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moul (US 2013/0180104 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano (US 2010/0208442 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Moul discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Moul does not disclose the hybrid printed circuit board of claim 1, further comprising: a bending prevention reinforcement member disposed on the upper surface of the printed circuit board.
Asano (US 2010/0208442 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), comprising: a bending prevention reinforcement member (31) disposed on an upper surface of a printed circuit board (40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Moul, further comprising: a bending prevention reinforcement member disposed on the upper surface of the printed circuit board as taught by Asano, in order to provide reliability, assist in properly mounting components, and prevent warpage (Asano, [0006,0048,0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 pm.
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 Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights