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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-13 in the reply filed on 09/19/24 is acknowledged.
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 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) 1-2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa et al. (US 2015/0250054 A1) hereinafter Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa discloses a printed circuit board (Fig.14B), comprising: a first insulating layer (see 50F in Fig.9B and the insulating layer below 70F in Fig.14B); a pad portion (85 and 60F) , disposed on the first insulating layer; a connection portion (86) disposed on the pad portion and including a protruding portion (77) and a first recess portion (77T) disposed inside the protruding portion; and a second insulating layer (70F) disposed on the pad portion and exposing a part of the connection portion (see exposed 86), wherein a height of the first recess portion (see height of 77T) of the connection portion as measured from an upper surface of the first insulating layer (see surface between 50F and 70F) is greater than a height of the second insulating layer (top surface of 70F) , as measured from an upper surface of the first insulating layer and disposed on a side of the connection portion (see Fig.14B).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the recess portion of the connection portion is positioned above the second insulating layer (see 77T above 70F in Fig.14B).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the height of the first recess portion decreases from the protruding portion to the center of the connection portion (see 77T in Fig.14B).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the height of the first recess portion is the lowest height of the first recess portion (see 77T in Fig.14B).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the protruding portion surrounds the first recess portion (see 77T in Fig.14B).
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim (s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Foreign Reference (KR 101009187 B1; with English translation) hereinafter FOR.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose, wherein the connection portion further comprises a second recess portion disposed along an edge of the protruding portion.
FOR discloses wherein the connection portion (104; Fig.5a) further comprises a second recess portion ( two recess on outside of protrusions 104b) disposed along an edge of the protruding portion (104b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of FOR to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the protruding portion surrounds the first recess portion, and the second recess portion surrounds the protruding portion.
FOR discloses wherein the protruding portion surrounds the first recess portion ( see two 104b surrounding a center recess) , and the second recess portion surrounds the protruding portion (see outside recess that surrounds 104b;Fig.5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of FOR to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 5, a modified Yoshikawa wherein the height of the second recess portion (see FOR) as measured from the first insulating layer (see above Yoshikawa) is higher than the height of the second insulating layer (see above Yoshikawa).
Claim (s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of FOR as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 20200118954 A1) hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein an outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion and an outer planar shape of the first recess portion are substantially the same.
Cai discloses wherein an outer planar shape (see outer shape of 123 ;Fig.1B) of the protruding portion (123) of the connection portion (125) and an outer planar shape of the first recess portion (see 151) are substantially the same (see Fig.2A where they are circular).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cai to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion and the outer planar shape of the first recess portion are substantially circular.
Cai discloses wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion and the outer planar shape of the first recess portion are substantially circular (see Fig.1B and Fig.2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cai to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion and an outer planar shape of the first recess portion are different from each other.
Cai discloses wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion and an outer planar shape of the first recess portion are different from each other (see outer shape of protrusion is circular and inner shape of recess within 209 is square in Fig.2G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cai to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion is substantially circular, and the outer planar shape of the first recess portion is square
Cai discloses wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion is substantially circular, and the outer planar shape of the first recess portion is square (see outer shape of protrusion is circular and inner shape of recess within 209 is square in Fig.2G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Cai to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Regarding claim 10, a modified Yoshikawa discloses wherein the outer planar shape of the protruding portion of the connection portion is substantially circular (see Fig.2A of Cai).
A modified Yoshikawa fails to specifically disclose the outer planar shape of the first recess portion is oval. Applying an oval shape to the modified Yoshikawa would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the recess. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47(CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plasticnursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldhave found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of theclaimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that thethe oval was significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teachings of of Cai to modify the connection portion of Yoshikawa in order to assist in adhesion between a conductor and a solder bump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights