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 § 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.
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) 1, 3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto (WO 2022124038 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP 2009252919 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 a wiring board (10) comprising:
a layered structure including a plurality of insulating layers (14a to 14d) that are laminated ([0050]); and
a waveguide (100) that is formed inside the layered structure,
wherein the waveguide includes
a pair of conductive layers (18 and 20) facing each other in a lamination direction of the insulating layers; and
a plurality of conductive pillars (first connection conductors v1 and second connection conductors v2) that are arranged in two rows along a propagation direction of electromagnetic waves between the pair of the conductive layers ([0006]; wherein the conductors are aligned with the first propagation direction), and that connect the pair of the conductive layers ([0017] and [0018]; wherein the conductors connect layers 18 and 20), and
the respective conductive pillars include
a plurality of connection pads (Fig 2; 50, 52, 60, 62) that are laminated between the pair of conductive layers; and
a via (conductors v11-v14 and v21-v24) that connects the connection pads of adjacent layers ([0017] and [0018]; wherein the pads are between conductors), and that has a cross-section perpendicular to the lamination direction ([0003]; wherein the pillars penetrate in a vertical direction).
Ikemoto does not teach a via that has a cross-section in a rectangular shape.
However, Hoshino teaches in figure 11 a via (10) that has a cross-section in a rectangular shape ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wiring board of Ikemoto to include rectangularly-shaped vias, in order to decrease the spacing between the vias, resulting in the reduction of interference between electronic systems (Hoshino [0015] and [0021]).
Applying rectangular vias as taught by Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the vias. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that the rectangular shape of the vias 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 Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto so as to decrease the spacing between the vias, resulting in the reduction of interference between electronic systems.
Regarding claim 3, Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 a wiring board (10), wherein the via (vias of v1 and v2) has a cross-section perpendicular to the lamination direction ([0003]; wherein the pillars penetrate in a vertical direction).
Ikemoto does not teach the via in a rounded rectangular shape.
However, Hoshino teaches in figure 11 the via (10) in a rounded rectangular shape ([0021]; wherein the via can be a rectangle with rounded corners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vias of Ikemoto to have a rounded rectangular shape in order to increase the surface area and lower resistance, as well as prevent bubbles getting caught on corners during formation.
Applying rounded rectangular vias as taught by Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the vias. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that the shape of the vias 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 Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto so as to increase surface area and lower resistance of vias, as well as prevent bubbles getting caught on corners during formation.
Regarding claim 7, Ikemoto teaches in figure 11 a wiring board (10), wherein out of the connection pads (50, 52, 60, 62) belonging to an identical layer in respective rows of the conductive pillars (v1 and v2), two or more adjacent connection pads are connected to one another to form a pattern (see connection pad pattern in figure 11).
Regarding claim 8, Ikemoto teaches in figure 11 a wiring board (10h), wherein the waveguide (100 and 300) further includes a plurality of other conductive pillars (v1 and v102) that are arranged in two rows along the propagation direction of electromagnetic waves in a region between the pair of the conductive layers and outside the conductive pillars (v2 and v101), and that connect the pair of the conductive layers ([0080]; wherein the pillars are arranged in a propagation direction and connect conductor layers 18 and 20).
Regarding claim 9, Ikemoto teaches in figure 11 a wiring board (10h), wherein the respective other conductive pillars (v1 and v102) include a plurality of other connection pads (pads in v1 and v102) that are laminated between the pair of the conductive layers (18 and 20); and another via that connects the other connection pads of adjacent layers, and that has a cross-section perpendicular to the lamination direction ([0080]; wherein the connection conductors penetrate in the vertical direction).
Ikemoto does not teach a via in a rectangular shape.
However, Hoshino teaches in figure 11 a via (10) in a rectangular shape ([0021]; wherein the via is a rectangle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wiring board of Ikemoto to include rectangularly-shaped vias, in order to decrease the spacing between the vias, resulting in the reduction of interference between electronic systems (Hoshino [0015] and [0021]).
Applying rectangular vias as taught by Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the vias. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that the rectangular shape of the vias 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 Hoshino to the teachings of Ikemoto so as to decrease the spacing between the vias, resulting in the reduction of interference between electronic systems.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto (WO 2022124038 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP 2009252919 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 7-9 above, and further in view of McKinzie (US 20120146881 A1) .
Regarding claim 2, a modified Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 of Ikemoto a wiring board (10), wherein the via (vias of v1 and v2) has a cross-section perpendicular to the lamination direction ([0003]; wherein the pillars penetrate in a vertical direction), and the cross-section is a rectangular shape (Hoshino [0021]; vias 10).
Ikemoto does not teach the via in a rectangular shape with long sides thereof extending in the propagation direction of electromagnetic waves.
However, McKinzie teaches the via (Fig 10A; post 1008) in a rectangular shape ([0105]) with long sides thereof extending in the propagation direction of electromagnetic waves ([0113]; wherein the long axis of the rectangle aligns with the propagation direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vias in Ikemoto to have a rectangular cross section with long sides in the direction of propagation, in order to have lower permittivity in the direction of propagation (McKinzie figure 14(b) and [0113]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto (WO 2022124038 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP 2009252919 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 7-9 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20240114620 A1).
Regarding claim 4, a modified Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 of Ikemoto a wiring board (10) with connection pads (50, 52, 60, 62).
A modified Ikemoto does not teach the connection pads are in a rectangular shape in plan view.
However, Lee teaches in figure 7 the connection pads (120 and 130) are in a rectangular shape in plan view ([0074]; wherein the pads can be rectangular).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pads of Ikemoto to be a rectangular shape, in order to increase the surface area around the via for a better connection.
Applying the rectangular connection pads as taught by Lee to the teachings of a modified Ikemoto would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the connection pads. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that the rectangular configuration of a connection pad 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 Lee to the teachings of a modified Ikemoto so as to increase surface area around the via for a better connection.
Regarding claim 6, a modified Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 of Ikemoto a wiring board (10) with connection pads (50, 52, 60, 62).
A modified Ikemoto does not teach that the connection pads are in a rounded rectangular shape in plan view.
However, Lee teaches in figure 7 that the connection pads (120 and 130) are in a rounded rectangular shape in plan view ([0074]; wherein the pads are rectangular with rounded corners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection pads of Ikemoto to have a rounded rectangular shape in order to increase the surface area for connection and decrease resistance.
Applying rounded rectangular connection pads as taught by Lee to the teachings of a modified Ikemoto would be a matter of choosing a particular shape, or configuration, of the connection pads. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Examiner found no persuasive evidence that the rounded rectangular shape 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 Lee to the teachings of Ikemoto so as to increase the surface area for connection and decrease resistance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto (WO 2022124038 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP 2009252919 A) and in view of Lee (US 20240114620 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of McKinzie (US 20120146881 A1).
Regarding claim 5, a modified Ikemoto teaches in figure 1 of Ikemoto a wiring board (10) with connection pads (50, 52, 60, 62) and the pads in a rectangular shape (Lee figure 7 [0074]; wherein pads 120 and 130 can be rectangular).
A modified Ikemoto does not teach that the connection pads are in a rectangular shape with long sides thereof extending in the propagation direction of electromagnetic waves in plan view.
However, McKinzie teaches in figure 29 that the connection pads (patch array 2306) are in a rectangular shape with long sides thereof extending in the propagation direction of electromagnetic waves in plan view ([0140]; wherein patches are rectangles with long sides q sub x in the direction of propagation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pads in Ikemoto to be rectangular with long sides in the direction of propagation, in order to decrease resistance in the direction of propagation (McKinzie [0140]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemoto (WO 2022124038 A1) in view of Hoshino (JP 2009252919 A) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 7-9 above, and further in view of Ogawa (JP 2003124586 A).
Regarding claim 10, a modified Ikemoto teaches in figure 11 of Ikemoto a wiring board (10h) with other conductive pillars (v1 and v102) and adjacent conductive pillars (v2 and v101).
A modified Ikemoto does not teach that the respective other conductive pillars are arranged at a position overlapping with a gap between the adjacent conductive pillars in a side view.
However, Ogawa teaches in figure 16 that the respective other conductive pillars (630L2 and 630K2) are arranged at a position overlapping with a gap between the adjacent conductive pillars (630L1 and 630K1) in a side view ([0073] and [0074]; wherein the conductors have an alternating pattern corresponding with the gaps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the other conductive pillars of Ikemoto to correspond to the gaps in the adjacent pillars, in order to improve adhesion of the layers and prevent the gaps from decreasing the effect of shielding (Ogawa [0077] and [0078]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Yugawa (JP 2016012589 A), Herbsommer (US 20140287701 A1), and Matsumoto (US 20140305688 A1).
Yugawa teaches a wiring board with an insulating layer and through conductors that have a quadrangular shape with rounded corners.
Herbsommer teaches a multilayer substrate with a waveguide that has two rows of vias.
Matsumoto teaches a multilayer wiring board with multiple vias and connecting connection pads.
The above references are considered of particular relevance to the claimed invention but cannot
be considered to teach the limitations or combined to being obvious to a person skilled in the art to
disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0134. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th/F 7:30-5:00.
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.
/ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights