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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 03/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 and 01/02/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “inner wall” which should be “inner wall surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 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.
Claims 1-2 recites the limitation "the first surface side" and “ the second surface side” in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "first angle" in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, it is also confusing for the examiner to interpret “a surface … located on the first surface” and “a surface … located on the second surface”. Examiner suggests to changing “located on the first/second surface” to “adjacent to the first/second surface” as “a surface” is part of a different element. Also, “first surface” and “second surface” has been used twice in claim 1 so it is unclear which “first surface” and “second surface” the claim 2 is referring.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SASAO (JP2019016733).
Regarding Claim 1. SASAO teaches, in Fig. 3 and 14, a wiring board comprising: an insulating layer (100) comprising a first surface (102) and a second surface (104) opposite the first surface; a through hole (110) having openings in the first surface and the second surface of the insulating layer (see Fig. 14); a through-hole electrical conductor (132a/b,130a/b,134a/b) located from a periphery of the opening in the first surface to a periphery of the opening in the second surface via an inner wall surface of the through hole (see Figs.14); and a filling resin (150) located in a region surrounded by the through-hole electrical conductor and comprising two surfaces that are a first surface on the first surface side and a second surface on the second surface side (see Figs. 3 and 14), wherein the through-hole electrical conductor comprises a first through-hole electrical conductor (132, 134), the first through-hole electrical conductor comprises a protruding portion (130) extending to an inside of the through hole in at least one opening of the through hole (see Fig. 14) and in a cross-sectional view, an angle formed between a portion of the protruding portion adjacent to the filling resin and at least the first surface or the second surface of the filling resin is an obtuse angle (see Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 3. (Currently Amended) SASAO teaches the wiring board according to claim 1, wherein the first angle is 100 or greater and 160 or less (see Fig. 3- page 4 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 4. SASAO teaches the wiring board according to claim 1, wherein a width of at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the filling resin surrounded by the first through-hole electrical conductor is 40% or greater and 90% or less of a width of the through hole (see Fig. 14- the width size is more than 50% of the through hole size however is less than 90%).
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASAO in view of Ohsumi (US20070124929).
Regarding Claim 2. SASAO teaches the wiring board according to claim 1, but does not teach a land conductor is located on a surface of the through-hole electrical conductor located on the first surface, the first surface of the filling resin located on the first surface side, a surface of the through-hole electrical conductor located on the second surface, and the second surface of the filling resin located on the second surface side.
Ohsumi teaches, in Fig. 1 and 22, a land conductor (8,9) is located on a surface of the through-hole electrical conductor (62) located on the first surface, the first surface of the filling resin located on the first surface side (see Fig. 1, 22), a surface of the through-hole electrical conductor (63) located on the second surface, and the second surface of the filling resin located on the second surface side (see Fig. 1, 22).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire board as disclosed by SASAO with the land conductor as disclosed by Ohsumi in order that the thermal expansion coefficients among the positive photosensitive resin 7, the through hole conductor 6, and the copper-clad laminate board 1 can be relaxed by the capped conductors 8 and 9 so that an influence of the deformation exerted on the via conductors 10 and 11 can be reduced. (Ohsumi, [0055]) .
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASAO in view of KATO (JP2014110293).
Regarding Claim 5. SASAO teaches the wiring board according to claim 1,but does not disclose the insulating layer comprises a first region in which a ratio of an opening area of the through hole to a unit area is a first occupancy rate, and a second region in which the ratio of the opening area of the through hole to the unit area is a second occupancy rate, the second occupancy rate is smaller than the first occupancy rate, and the first through-hole electrical [AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Region B)][AltContent: textbox (Region B)][AltContent: textbox (Region A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
291
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
conductor is located in the first region.
Kato discloses, in Fig. 9 (see annotations above), the insulating layer comprises a first region (region A) in which a ratio of an opening area of the through hole to a unit area is a first occupancy rate (see above-{2}), and a second region (Region B) in which the ratio of the opening area of the through hole to the unit area is a second occupancy rate (see above –{1}), the second occupancy rate is smaller than the first occupancy rate (see above), and the first through-hole electrical conductor is located in the first region (when combined).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wiring board disclosed by SASAO with the two regions with different occupancy rate as disclosed by Kato in order to improve connectibility of a solder pad to an electrode pad of a semiconductor element as it is known in the art (Kato, Abstract-Problem to be solved).
Regarding Claim 6. SASAO and Kato teaches the wiring board according to claim 5, wherein the through-hole electrical conductor further comprises a second through-hole electrical conductor (Kato, 2) a thickness of a portion of the second through-hole electrical conductor located on an inner wall of the through hole is greater than a thickness of a portion of the first through- hole electrical conductor (3) located on the inner wall of the through hole (Fig. 9), and the second through-hole electrical conductor is located in the second region (see above).
Regarding Claim 7. SASAO and Kato teaches the wiring board according to claim 6, wherein widths of the first surface and the second surface of the filling resin (8) surrounded by the second through-hole electrical conductor are greater than widths of the first surface and the second surface of the filling resin surrounded by the first through-hole electrical conductor (Kato, see Fig. 9 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm.
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 DOLE can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights