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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states, “in particular” in the preamble. This language is considered indefinite and requires amending. 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 6, 11, 12 and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “between 0.03mm and 0.5mm”, and the claim also recites “between 0.05mm and 0.3mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “more than one expansion slit”, and the claim also recites between “preferably at least two expansion slits are arranged perpendicular to each other” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “less than 50cm^2”, and the claim also recites between “more preferably less than 30cm^2” & “most preferably less than 15cm^2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “milling at least one expansion slit into the basic PCB”, and the claim also recites between “and preferably the contact layer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grede et al. (WO 2020040725).
Regarding claim 1 – Grede teaches a Printed-Circuit-Board structure (fig. 1, 100 [paragraph 0034] Grede states, “The apparatus 100 is an example of an apparatus that includes a circuit board (e.g., the circuit board 102) having an RF structure”), in particular for an RF generator, comprising: a heat spreader (118 [paragraph 0025] Grede states, “heat carrier 118”); a basic printed-circuit-board, PCB (102), having an upper surface and a lower surface (see fig. 1), wherein the basic PCB (102) comprises a metallic layer (112) at the lower surface having at least one conductor line ([paragraph 0023] Grede states, “The bottom layer 112 can include one or more components and/or conductive traces of the circuit board 102”) and/or at least one contact pad; and a contact layer (116 [paragraph 0025] Grede states, “a multi-stack cooling structure (MSCS) 116”), wherein the contact layer (116) comprises an upper surface directly connected to the metallic layer (112) of the basic PCB (102) and a lower surface (see fig. 1); wherein the lower surface of the contact layer (116) is bonded to the heat spreader (118) by a bonding layer (128 [paragraph 0030] Grede states, “the portion 128A (or the entire layer 128) can include a thermal pad, adhesive, bonding film, a matrix-fiber aggregate, solder and/or glue”).
Regarding claim 2 – Grede teaches the printed-circuit-board structure according to claim 1, wherein the contact layer (fig. 1, 116) is made of a prepreg or non-reinforced adhesive ([paragraph 0033] Grede states, “The MSCS 116 can include a layer 136…the layer 136 can include an adhesive, glue and/or thermal grease”).
Regarding claim 5 – Grede teaches the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to any claim 1,wherein the bonding layer (fig. 1, 128) and the contact layer (116) of the PCB structure are two distinct layers (figure 1 shows the layers 128 and 116 being distinct as evidenced by their labeling).
Regarding claim 7 – Grede teaches the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to claim 1,wherein the thickness of the contact layer (fig. 1, 116) is adapted to provide a planar lower surface (figure 1 shows the contact layer 116 have a “planar lower surface”).
Regarding claim 8 – Grede teaches the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to claim 1, wherein the lower surface (fig. 1, lower surface of frame 134) of the contact layer (116) comprises a contact metal layer ( 134 [paragraph 0031] Grede states, “The frame 134 can be made of PCB substrate (including, but not limited to, clad metal, polymer foil, cloth and/or paper) or metal (including, but not limited to, copper)”).
Regarding claim 13 – Grede teaches a method for manufacturing a printed-circuit-board, PCB, structure (fig. 1, 100 [paragraph 0034] Grede states, “The apparatus 100 is an example of an apparatus that includes a circuit board (e.g., the circuit board 102) having an RF structure”) comprising: providing a basic PCB (102) having an upper surface and a lower surface, wherein a metallic layer (112) at the lower surface having at least one conductor line ([paragraph 0023] Grede states, “The bottom layer 112 can include one or more components and/or conductive traces of the circuit board 102”) and/or at least one contact pad; laminating onto the metallic layer (112) a contact layer (116 [paragraph 0025] Grede states, “a multi-stack cooling structure (MSCS) 116”) having an upper surface directly connected to the metallic layer (112) of the basic PCB (102) and a lower surface (claimed structure shown in figure 1); and bonding the lower surface of the contact layer to a heat spreader (118 [paragraph 0025] Grede states, “heat carrier 118”) by a bonding layer (128 [paragraph 0030] Grede states, “the portion 128A (or the entire layer 128) can include a thermal pad, adhesive, bonding film, a matrix-fiber aggregate, solder and/or glue”) to form the PCB structure (100).
Regarding claim 16 – Grede teaches an RF-Generator for generating high power RF signals ([paragraph 0018] Grede states, “generators for RF power delivery”) comprising a PCB structure (100) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17 – Grede teaches an RF-Generator for generating high power RF signals ([paragraph 0018] Grede states, “generators for RF power delivery”) comprising a PCB structure (100) built by the method of claim 13.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grede et al.
Regarding claim 3 – Grede teaches the printed-circuit-board structure according to claim 1, wherein the bonding layer (fig. 1, 128) comprises an adhesive based material ([paragraph 0030] Grede states, “the portion 128A (or the entire layer 128) can include a thermal pad, adhesive, bonding film, a matrix-fiber aggregate, solder and/or glue”).
Grede fails to explicitly teach wherein the adhesive is a resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive material being based on a resin, 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. Glues and adhesives made of a resin material will provide efficient bonding with minimal cost and processing steps.
Regarding claim 4 – Grede teaches the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to any of claim 1,wherein the bonding layer (fig. 1, 128 comprises an adhesive sheet ([paragraph 0030] Grede states, “the portion 128A (or the entire layer 128) can include a thermal pad, adhesive, bonding film, a matrix-fiber aggregate, solder and/or glue”).
Grede fails to teach the bonding layer comprise adhesive sheets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bonding layer comprising a plurality of adhesive sheets, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Plural adhesive sheets further improves bonding between the contact layer and the heat spreader.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grede et al. in view of Yokozuka et al. (US PG. Pub. 2006/0234420).
Regarding claim 6 – Grede teaches the printed-circuit-board structure according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the contact layer has a thickness of between 0.03mm and 0.5mm, and more preferably between 0.05 mm and 0.3 mm.
Yokozuka teaches wherein the contact layer (fig. 1, 21) has a thickness of between 0.03mm and 0.5mm ([paragraph 0047] Yokozuka states, “a prepreg 21 (epoxy resin containing glass cloth; a thickness of 0.1 mmt)”), and more preferably between 0.05 mm and 0.3 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the printed-circuit-board having a bonding layer between a heat spreader and a contact layer as taught by Grede with the contact layer having a thickness between 0.3mm and 0.5mm as taught by Yokozuka because this thickness provides adequate insulating properties while also maintaining a thin profile.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grede et al. in view of Waldvogel et al. (US PG. Pub. 2005/0092814).
Regarding claim 9 – Grede teaches the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to claim 8, but fail to teach wherein the bonding layer has at least one cut-out to accommodate a piece of electrically conductive bonding film and provide an electrical connection between the contact metal layer and the heat spreader.
Waldvogel teaches wherein the bonding layer (fig. 5, 528 [paragraph 0042] Waldvogel states, “adhesive layer 540”) has at least one cut-out (544 [paragraph 0042] Waldvogel states, “precise cavities 544”) to accommodate a piece of electrically conductive bonding film (536 [paragraph 0042] Waldvogel states, “solder layer 536”) and provide an electrical connection between the contact metal layer (528 [paragraph 0042] Waldvogel states, “ground layer 528”) and the heat spreader (550 [paragraph 0042] Waldvogel states, “heat sink 550”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the printed-circuit-board having a bonding layer between a heat spreader and a contact layer as taught by Grede with the bonding layer having a cut-out to accommodate a piece of electrically conductive bonding film to provide an electrical connection between the heat spreader and the contact member layer as taught by Waldvogel because Waldvogel states, “the device apertures enable a good thermal conduction path between the ground flange of the power device and the heat sink” [paragraph 0039].
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grede et al. in view of Jansson et al. (US PG. Pub. 2012/0007535).
Regarding claim 10 – Grede teaches the printed-circuit-board structure according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the PCB comprises at least one expansion slit.
Jansson teaches wherein the PCB (figs. 2-4, 3) comprises at least one expansion slit (9 [paragraph 0046] Jansson states, “a number of through slits 9 are provided in the PCB 3”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the printed-circuit-board having a a PCB mounted to a heat spreader as taught by Grede with the PCB comprising at least one expansion slit as taught by Jansson because Jansson states, “To allow for expansion of the PCB without significant tension, a number of through slits 9 are provided in the PCB 3.” [paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 11 – Grede in view of Jansson teach the printed-circuit-board structure according to claim 10, comprising more than one expansion slit (Jansson; fig. 3, 9; figure 3 shows a plurality of expansion slits 9), wherein preferably at least two expansion slits are arranged perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 12 – Grede in view of Jansson teach the Printed-Circuit-Board structure according to claim 10, wherein the PCB structure is segmented by the more than one expansion slit (Jansson; fig. 3, 9; figure 3 shows a plurality of expansion slits 9).
Grede in view of Jansson fail to teach wherein preferably the size of the segments is less than 50 cm.sup.2, more preferably less than 30 cm.sup.2, and most preferably less than 15 cm.sup.2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expansion slit segment size being less than 50 cm.sup.2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, pages 12 & 20, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. The size of the segment of the expansion slit should be large enough to relieve stress of the PCB while being small enough to prevent weakening of the overall structure and still allow efficient circuit routing throughout the PCB.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grede et al. in view of Jansson et al. and further in view of Griese et al. (US Patents 7173192).
Regarding claim 14 – Grede teaches the method according to claim 13, but fails to teach wherein before bonding the basic PCB with the contact layer to the heat spreader, milling at least one expansion slit into the basic PCB and preferably the contact layer.
Jansson teaches wherein before bonding the basic PCB (fig. 3, 3) with the contact layer to the heat spreader (fig. 4, 6), forming at least one expansion slit (9 [paragraph 0046] Jansson states, “a number of through slits 9 are provided in the PCB 3”) into the basic PCB (3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the printed-circuit-board having a a PCB mounted to a heat spreader as taught by Grede with the PCB comprising at least one expansion slit as taught by Jansson because Jansson states, “To allow for expansion of the PCB without significant tension, a number of through slits 9 are provided in the PCB 3.” [paragraph 0046].
Griese teaches milling at least one slit into the basic PCB ([column 3 lines 57-58] Griese states, “The recess 23 is produced by means of a milling tool which mills a slit into the printed circuit board”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the printed-circuit-board having a PCB mounted to a heat spreader as taught by Grede in view of Jansson with the milling process to form the slit as taught by Griese because Griese states, “with respect to the positioning accuracy of the milling tool, it can be ensured that sufficiently deep blind holes are produced” [column 3 & 4 lines 66-67 & 1].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rijken et al. (US Patent 8335077) discloses an insulating aperture in printed circuit boards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN T SAWYER whose telephone number is (571)270-5469. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5pm.
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 5712722342. 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.
/STEVEN T SAWYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights