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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiaki (JP 2021 153157) in view of Maki (JP 1992-15515).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshiaki discloses the “heat dissipation layer 13,” “insulating resin layer 11,” and “circuit layer 12” of the invention disclosed in document 1 respectively correspond to the “metal base substrate,” “insulating layer formed by curing a resin composition,” and “circuit pattern” of the invention as in claim 1. See paragraphs [0028]-[0058] and Figs. 1 and 5.
Further, Yoshiaki discloses (paragraph [0027]) indicates that it is preferable for the thickness t of the circuit layer 12 (metal pieces 22) to be 1.0 mm or more and more preferable for the thickness t to be 1.5 mm or more. Therefore, the “circuit layer 12” of the invention disclosed in document 1 corresponds to the “circuit pattern having a thickness of 0.8 mm or more” of the invention as in claim 1.
Also, Yoshiaki discloses (paragraphs [0033], [0034], fig. 5) placing a resin composition 21 on one surface of a metal plate 23 that is to become the heat dissipation layer 13 (resin composition placement step S02) and arranging a plurality of metal pieces 22 in a circuit pattern on one surface of the resin composition 21 (metal piece arrangement step S03). Therefore, the “resin composition placement step S02” and “metal piece arrangement step S03” of the invention disclosed in Yoshiaki correspond to the “step for preparing a pre-pressure-bonding stack in which the resin composition is interposed in a semi-cured state between the metal base substrate and circuit pattern” of the invention as in claim 1.
Yoshiaki discloses (paragraph [0035]) describes the metal plate 23 that is to become the heat dissipation layer 13, the resin composition 21, and the metal pieces 22 being pressed in the stacking direction and heated such that the resin composition 21 is hardened and an insulating resin layer 11 is formed (bonding step S04). Therefore, the “bonding step S04” of the invention disclosed in Yoshiaki is the same as the invention as in claim 1 in that each has “a step for … increasing the temperature and pressure … so as to cure the semi-cured resin composition.”
However, Yoshiaki does not disclose “a step for covering the pre-pressure-bonding stack with a film and placing the resulting stack inside an autoclave, and a step for degassing the inside of the film and increasing the temperature and pressure inside the autoclave so as to cure the semi-cured resin composition,” the invention disclosed in document 1 does not carry out the bonding step S04 using an autoclave. Regarding this difference, the applicant is directed to the reference of Maki
Maki discloses (p. 2, line 17-p. 3, line 9) indicates that when multiple layers of molding materials that are to form a printed wiring board are stacked and molded, if the air between stacked resin plates and the gas contained in a prepreg are not removed, voids will remain in the product, so an autoclave-type vacuum press is used to mold a resin laminated board. Maki (p. 14, line 3-p. 17, line 2) describes placing a multi-layer molding material 7 on a dispersion plate 8, placing a backing cap 2 on top of the multi-layer molding material 7, vacuum-suctioning the backing cap 2, and heating and pressurizing the multi-layer molding material from all sides so as to melt and solidify a prepreg and thereby form a laminate.
Both Yoshiaki and Maki each form a printed circuit board through stacking and molding. Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily have applied the configuration of Maki to the invention disclosed in Yoshiaki and used an autoclave-type vacuum press to carry out the bonding step for hardening the resin composition 21 and forming the insulating resin layer 11.
Regarding claims 2-5, It is the examiner’s position that initially applying pressure, an increasing proportion of a weight-average molecular weight of the semi-cured resin composition, and density of the resin are within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to provide in the method of Yoshiaki in view of Maki based on desired physical properties of the laminate being produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
JAMES D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights