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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 14, 17 – 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 20020033378 A1, “Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses (Fig. 1A) a substrate comprising: a core substrate (2) having a first surface (3), a second surface (4) facing away from the first surface, and a cavity portion therein (5, 6); at least one electronic component (10) and a metal post (8, 12) provided in the cavity portion (See Fig. 2A); and an encapsulating material (13) filling the cavity portion and having a third surface close to the first surface and a fourth surface close to the second surface, wherein the metal post is exposed through the third surface and the fourth surface of the encapsulating material (See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein the metal post has a shape having a dimension in a height direction parallel to a thickness direction of the core substrate greater than each of dimensions in other directions orthogonal to the height direction (See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein the electronic component is a heat-generating component during operation (See para [0014]), and a distance between the metal post (12) and one of the at least one electronic component (10) closest to the metal post is less than a distance between the metal post and a wall surface of the cavity portion (See Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein the dimension of the metal post (12) in the height direction parallel to the thickness direction of the core substrate (2) is greater than a dimension of the electronic component (10) in the height direction (See Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein a linear expansion coefficient of the metal post (8, 12) is between a linear expansion coefficient of the core substrate (2) and a linear expansion coefficient of the electronic component (10) (Since parts (8, 12) are made of copper, 2 is made of BT Resin and 10 is made of ceramic; the linear expansion coefficient of ceramic < copper < BT Resin) , and in a cross section orthogonal to the second surface, the metal post is disposed between a wall surface of the cavity portion and the electronic component (See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein, in a cross section parallel to the second surface, a top-view shape of the electronic component is a rectangle (See para [0054]), and a top-view shape of the metal post is a round-chamfered polygon with four or more sides, a polygon with five or more sides, a circle, an ellipse, an oval, or a race track shape (See para [0053], [0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1, wherein the metal post comprises copper or a copper alloy (See para [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi discloses a module comprising: the substrate according to Claim 1; and a heating element (34) mounted on the first surface of the core substrate (2), wherein the heating element overlaps the metal post (12, 8) in a top view in a direction orthogonal to the first surface, and the heating element and the metal post are directly connected to each other or connected to each other via a first material (18, 24) having a higher thermal conductivity than the encapsulating material (see para [0113]).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses the module according to Claim 10, wherein the first material is a metal material (see para [0113]).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses the module according to Claim 10, wherein a second material (19, 25) having a higher thermal conductivity than the encapsulating material (13) is provided on the second surface of the core substrate (2), and the metal post and the second material are connected to each other (See fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi discloses the module according to Claim 12, wherein the second material is a metal material (see para [0113]).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 2, wherein the electronic component is a heat-generating component during operation (See para [0014]), and a distance between the metal post (12) and one of the at least one electronic component (10) closest to the metal post is less than a distance between the metal post and a wall surface of the cavity portion (See Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 2, wherein the dimension of the metal post (12) in the height direction parallel to the thickness direction of the core substrate (2) is greater than a dimension of the electronic component (10) in the height direction (See Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 3, wherein the dimension of the metal post (12) in the height direction parallel to the thickness direction of the core substrate (2) is greater than a dimension of the electronic component (10) in the height direction (See Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 2, wherein a linear expansion coefficient of the metal post (8, 12) is between a linear expansion coefficient of the core substrate (2) and a linear expansion coefficient of the electronic component (10) (Since parts (8, 12) are made of copper, 2 is made of BT Resin and 10 is made of ceramic; the linear expansion coefficient of ceramic < copper < BT Resin) , and in a cross section orthogonal to the second surface, the metal post is disposed between a wall surface of the cavity portion and the electronic component (See Fig. 1A).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 20020033378 A1, “Hayashi”) in view of Kato et al. (US 20120090865 A1, “Kato”).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi discloses the substrate according to Claim 1,
Hayashi is silent on wherein the metal post comprises a coaxial cable, wherein an outer periphery of a metal wire in the coaxial cable is covered with a resin coating layer and an outer periphery of the resin coating layer is covered with a metal coating layer.
However, Kato discloses (Fig. 3) wherein the metal post comprises a coaxial cable (8), wherein an outer periphery of a metal wire (2) in the coaxial cable is covered with a resin coating layer (4) and an outer periphery of the resin coating layer (4) is covered with a metal coating layer (6b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayashi to incorporate the teachings of Kato and provide wherein the metal post comprises a coaxial cable (8), wherein an outer periphery of a metal wire (2) in the coaxial cable is covered with a resin coating layer (4) and an outer periphery of the resin coating layer (4) is covered with a metal coating layer (6b). Doing so would enhance wettability and reduce interfacial tension (See para [0038], [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15 – 16 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 pm.
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 on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights