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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 7, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on October 7, 2025, with respect to claims 5, 7, and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 5 and 7 and the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, i.e., Higashi (US 20090294964 A1), does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the rationale used in the 35 USC § 103 rejection below does not need to be same rationale as raised by the applicant’s arguments. See page 5 of the applicant’s remarks. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP § 2144 (IV).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, and 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1) and further in view of Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1) and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lüdeke teaches a method for forming a contact connection (11, see Fig. 1, [0029]) between a chip (18) and a conductor material track (14), the conductor material track being formed on a non-conductive substrate (12, see [0007]: made of plastic or ceramic material), the chip being arranged on the non-conductive substrate (12) or on another conductor material track (15, see [0029]),
wherein
a sinter paste (29; [0030]: silver paste was sintered, hence 29 is a sinter paste) consisting of silver or copper ([0006]) is applied to respective chip contact surfaces (25 & 28; [0029]) of the chip and the conductor material track, a contact conductor (30; [0029]) being immersed in the sinter paste on the chip contact surface and in the sinter paste on the conductor material track 23, and the contact connection ( 11; [0030]) being formed by sintering the sinter paste 29 by laser energy ([0007]: "The ultimate formation of the contact connection takes place by sintering of the silver paste or copper paste by means of laser energy or laser sintering, a laser beam being aimed directly or indirectly at an area of the contact connection").
However, Lüdeke does not teach sinter paste consisting of least 40 % silver or copper.
Hardin, in the same field of invention, teaches a method wherein the sinter paste consists of least 40 % silver or copper (Abstract: "Metallization pastes"; [0101]: metallization paste for improved silver sintering; [0108]: "Using Silver Nanoparticle Front Busbar Pastes Silver nanoparticle metallization pastes… The resulting morphology of the front busbar layer is a condensed particle morphology, which is defined as a sintered and compacted silver matrix that contains dispersed NIMP, elements from the glass frit and/or reaction products from the glass frit and silicon"; [0039]: "weight ratio of silver to nondeformable inorganic material particles is about 5:1", which is at least 40% silver by weight (5 silver out of 6 parts equals 83.33% silver).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Hardin into the method of Lüdeke to use a sinter paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper when forming a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track by sintering the said paste. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of incorporating nondeformable inorganic materials in the sinter paster together with the silver (Hardin [0039]) which results in a desired peel strength of the resulting sintered connection (Hardin [0040-0041) and yield printed lines with low porosities (Hardin Abstract, [0099], [0102]-[0103]) and lowering the cost of producing sintering pastes (Hardin [0073]).
However, Lüdeke in view of Hardin does not teach wherein laser energy of 15 mJ to 30 mJ is applied for sintering the sinter paste.
Higashi, in the same field of invention, teaches a method (Fig. 1; ¶ 0026: Step C: laser anneal) of forming a contact connection (¶ 0054: low-resistance electrically conductive coating) wherein laser energy of 15 mJ to 30 mJ (¶ 0109: 50 mJ/cm2) is applied for sintering the sinter paste (¶ 0107, ¶ 0055-¶ 0056: particle 20 includes silver).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Higashi into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin to sinter a sinter paste using a laser energy in a range of 15 mJ to 30 mJ to form the contact connection. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of routinely optimizing the amount of energy of the laser used to sinter the contact connection in order to reduce and optimize the sheet resistance of the resulting contact connection to a level that is desired for a specific embodiment (Higashi ¶ 0109: 1.2 Ω /sq; ¶ 0108before laser annealing, the sheet resistance was 2.28 Ω /sq).
Regarding claim 2, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sinter paste (29; Lüdeke Fig. 1) comprises silver or copper nanoparticles (Lüdeke [0006, 0010]: "that is silver particles or copper particles, can penetrate the stranded wire so that a particularly tight connection between the silver particles or copper particles and the stranded wire can be formed during sintering" ).
Regarding claim 3, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sinter paste (Hardin [0101]: metallization paste for improved silver sintering ) comprises an alcohol solution, a glycol solution or epoxy resin (Hardin [0101]: glycol ethers used as solvents as part of non-silver portion of the metallization paste).
Regarding claim 5, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the contact conductor ( 30; Lüdeke Fig. 1) is a stranded wire or a wire or a flat wire (Lüdeke [0009]: "A stranded wire, preferably a flat litz wire, particularly preferably a stranded wire or a flat litz wire made of copper or a copper alloy can be used as a contact conductor").
Regarding claim 9, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sinter paste ( 29; Lüdeke Fig. 1) is sintered prior to complete vaporization of the solvent (Lüdeke [0014]: "the silver paste or the copper paste can be sintered prior to a complete vaporization of the solvent. Thus, the silver paste or copper paste can be prevented from fully drying before it is sintered").
Regarding claim 10, Lüdeke teaches a chip arrangement (10; [0029]), comprising a chip (18; [0029]), a non-conductive substrate (12; [0007]: made of plastic or ceramic material) having a conductor material track (14; [0029]) formed thereon, and a contact conductor (30; [0029]), the chip having been arranged on the non-conductive substrate (12) or on a conductor material track ( 23; [0029]: contact metallization 23 made of silver or silver alloy),
wherein
a sinter paste (29; [0030]: silver paste was sintered, hence 29 is a sinter paste) consisting of silver or copper ([0006]) has been applied to respective chip contact surfaces ( 25; [0029]) of the chip (18) and the conductor material track (14), the contact conductor (30) having been immersed in the sinter paste (29) on the chip contact surface (25) and in the sinter paste (29) on the conductor material track (14), a solvent ([0006]) contained in the sinter paste having been vaporized by heating, a contact connection (11; [0030]) having been formed by sintering the sinter paste (29) by laser energy ([0007]).
Furthermore, the claim limitations consisting of immersing the conductor material track in sinter paste, vaporization of sinter paste by heating, and sintering by means of laser direct to a Product-By-Process claim. Product-By-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). MPEP § 2113 (I).
However, Lüdeke does not teach sinter paste consisting of least 40 % silver or copper.
Hardin, in the same field of invention, teaches a device wherein the sinter paste consisting of least 40 % silver or copper (Abstract: "Metallization pastes"; [0101]: metallization paste for improved silver sintering; [0108]: "Using Silver Nanoparticle Front Busbar Pastes Silver nanoparticle metallization pastes… The resulting morphology of the front busbar layer is a condensed particle morphology, which is defined as a sintered and compacted silver matrix that contains dispersed NIMP, elements from the glass frit and/or reaction products from the glass frit and silicon"; [0039]: "weight ratio of silver to nondeformable inorganic material particles is about 5:1", which is at least 40% silver by weight (5 silver out of 6 parts equals 83.33% silver )).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Hardin into the device of Lüdeke to use a sinter paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper in a chip arrangement at least comprising of a non-conductive substrate and a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track formed by sintering the said paste. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of incorporating nondeformable inorganic materials in the sinter paster together with the silver (Hardin [0039]) which results in a desired peel strength of the resulting sintered connection (Hardin [0040-0041) and yield printed lines with low porosities (Hardin Abstract, [0099, 0102-0103]) and lowering the cost of producing sintering pastes (Hardin [0073]).
However, Lüdeke in view of Hardin does not teach a chip arrangement wherein laser energy of 15 mJ to 30 mJ is applied for sintering the sinter paste.
Higashi, in the same field of invention, teaches a contact connection (¶ 0054: low-resistance electrically conductive coating) wherein laser energy of 15 mJ to 30 mJ (¶ 0109: 50 mJ/cm2) is applied for sintering the sinter paste (¶ 0107, ¶ 0055-¶ 0056: particle 20 includes silver).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Higashi into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin to sinter a sinter paste using a laser energy in a range of 15 mJ to 30 mJ to form the contact connection. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the amount of energy of the laser used to sinter the contact connection in order to reduce and optimize the sheet resistance of the resulting contact connection to a level that is desired for a specific embodiment (Higashi ¶ 0109: 1.2 Ω /sq; ¶ 0108before laser annealing, the sheet resistance was 2.28 Ω /sq).
Furthermore, the claim limitations consisting of applying a laser energy of 15 mJ to 30 mJ to the sinter paste direct to a Product-By-Process claim. Product-By-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2113 (I).
Regarding claim 11, the Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the non-conductive substrate is made of silicon or glass or a thermoplastic material (Hanya [0059]: “Any material may be used for the substrate 11… for example, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) substrate, a polycarbonate (PC) substrate, a liquid crystal polymer, a glass epoxy substrate, a paper phenol substrate, a flexible print substrate, a ceramic substrate, a glass containing silicon substrate, a glass substrate, and a metal substrate having a surface coated with an insulating layer”, emphasis added; also polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) and polycarbonate (PC) are known in the art to be thermoplastic materials).
Regarding claim 12, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the sinter paste 29 (Lüdeke Fig. 1) comprises silver or copper nanoparticles (Lüdeke [0006, 0010]: "that is silver particles or copper particles, can penetrate the stranded wire so that a particularly tight connection between the silver particles or copper particles and the stranded wire can be formed during sintering").
Regarding claim 13, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim10, wherein the contact conductor 30 (Lüdeke Fig. 1) is a stranded wire or a wire or a flat wire (Lüdeke [0009]: "A stranded wire, preferably a flat litz wire, particularly preferably a stranded wire or a flat litz wire made of copper or a copper alloy can be used as a contact conductor").
Regarding claim 15, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim10, wherein the sinter paste 29 (Lüdeke Fig. 1) covers the section 32 & 33 ([0029]) of the contact conductor 30 immersed in the sinter paste 29.
Regarding claim 16, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the chip is a power transistor (Lüdeke Abstract & [0001-0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the contact conductor is a flat litz wire (Lüdeke [0009]: "A stranded wire, preferably a flat litz wire, particularly preferably a stranded wire or a flat litz wire made of copper or a copper alloy can be used as a contact conductor"), is used as a contact conductor 30 (Lüdeke Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the sinter paste 29 (Lüdeke Fig. 1) fully encloses (as seen in Fig. 1) the section 32 & 33 ([0029]) of the contact conductor 30 immersed in the sinter paste 29.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1), Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1) , and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Guenther(EP 2743973 A2; see English translation mailed on January 21, 2025).
Regarding claim 4, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya teaches the method according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the sinter paste is applied with a layer thickness of 80 µm to 700 µm.
Guenther, in the same field of invention, teaches a method wherein the sinter paste comprised of at least 75% silver ([0027]) is applied with a layer thickness of 80 µm to 700 µm ([0020]: " the sintered layer is formed in a layer thickness of greater than or equal to 10 µm to less than or equal to 1 mm, in particular greater than or equal to 25 µm to less than or equal to 500 µm, for example greater than or equal to 50 µm to less than or equal to 200 µm.).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Guenther into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya to apply the sinter past with a thickness of 80 µm to 700 µm in a design of a chip arrangement comprising of a chip, the non-conductive substrate, and a conductor material track wherein a sinter paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper is used to connect a contact conductor to the chip and the material conductor track. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of making the sinter paste thick enough to achieve better bonding strength. Further, optimization of ranges to achieve a better bonding strength is not patentable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1), Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1), and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ruben (US 2003/0127434 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches a laser is operating for sintering the sinter paste (Lüdeke Abstract). However, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi not teach wherein the laser is operated with a pulse duration in the range of 1 ms to 4 ms.
Ruben, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of sintering conductive metal ribbons 102 (Fig.1; [0023]) made of silver ([0009, 0043]) in microelectronic devices (abstract, [0003]) using an apparatus (Fig. 1; [0023]) that generates a laser ([0023]: "a laser may be fired in order to weld the ribbon 102 to the substrate 108 or other component"; [0036]: Nd:YAG 355-1,064 nm laser) wherein the laser operates with a pulse duration in the range of 1 ms to 4 ms ([0036]: "with a pulse width of 1-5 msec").
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Ruben into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi to use an apparatus that pulses the laser energy in the range of 1 ms to 4 ms in order to sinter a paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper when forming a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using an apparatus widely known in the art for sintering conductive wires at the appropriate power and pulse width necessary to generate the appropriate heat required for sintering (Ruben [0036]: 1-10 Watts). Further, pulsing the laser energy in a range of time is an optimization of ranges. Optimization of ranges of laser energy to achieve a better bonding strength is not patentable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1), Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1), and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further in view of Suganuma (NPL: Low-temperature low-pressure die attach with hybrid silver particle paste, Microelectronics Reliability, Volume 52, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 375-380, ISSN 0026-2714; see NPL mailed on January 21, 2025).
Regarding claim 8, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the solvent contained in the sinter paste is at least partially vaporized by heating in an oven.
Suganuma, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of sintering semiconductors (Page 376, 1st column, 2nd paragraph: "Low-temperature sintering nanoparticle pastes such as Au and Ag are among the promising choices for high-temperature die attach technology") through a silver paste (Page 376, "2. Experimental", 1st paragraph: "Two kinds of Ag particles… These particles were mixed, resulting in modified compositions." Also see Page. 377, "Results and Discussion, Paragraph 1: "hybrid paste" and Fig. 4: nanoparticle paste ) containing a solvent (Page 376, "2. Experimental", 1st paragraph: "We selected two solvents: ethanol… and ethylene glycol… which are typical alcohols that vaporize below the lowest possible sintering temperature of 200 °C;" (emphasis added))
wherein the solvent is at least partially vaporized by heating in an oven (2nd paragraph: "Sintering was carried out in air at temperatures from 150 °C to 300 °C for 5–50 min". The solvents are at least (emphasis added) partially vaporized since the heating temperature of 300 °C is above their vaporization temperature of 200 °C; Also, it is known in the art that an oven is an apparatus where air temperatures are heating above room temperature; Since Suganuma teaches heating up to 300 °C, which is above the room temperature of 30°C, then Suganuma teaches using an oven).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Suganuma into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya to at least partially vaporize the solvents contained in the sinter paste by heating when sintering the paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper to form a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track in an oven. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of forming a sintered layer having high thermal conductivity of 140 W/m K, which is two times higher than Au alloys and three times higher than conventional die attach solder Pb-5Sn as well as lowering the cost compared to these alloys ( Suganuma: Page 380, Conclusion).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1), Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1), and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further in view of Gray Haley (US 2018/0098437 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 10, but does not teach wherein the contact conductor has a width between 10 µm and 350 µm.
Gray Haley, in the same field of invention, teaches a chip arrangement 100 (Fig. 1, [0063]) wherein the contact conductor 106 ([0063]) has a width between 10 µm and 350 µm (Fig. 12 & [0125]: "given a 15 µm diameter miniature coaxial wire for power distribution, the electrically conductive core 1216 has, for example, a 10 µm diameter").
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Gray Haley into the device of Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya to provide the width of the contact conductor to be between 10 µm and 350 µm in a chip arrangement comprising of a chip, the non-conductive substrate, and a conductor material track wherein a sinter paste consisting of at least 40% silver or copper is used to connect a contact conductor to the chip and the material conductor track. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Hanya in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the contact conductor for power distribution in the said chip arrangement, which requires low resistance, low inductance, low impedance, and high capacitance (Gray Haley [0125, 0127]). Further, optimization of ranges, such as the thickness of conductors, to achieve desired characteristics is not patentable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1) and in view of Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1) and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hanya (US 2019/0281705 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 10 and further teaches the substrate to be made of ceramic (Lüdeke ¶ 0007). However, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi does not teach a method for forming contact connection wherein the substrate is made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate.
Hanya, in the same field of invention, teaches a method for forming contact connection (Fig. 2D, [0041]-[0048]: sintering) wherein the substrate 11 (Fig. 1, [0020]) is made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate ([0059]: “Any material may be used for the substrate 11… for example, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) substrate, a polycarbonate (PC) substrate, a liquid crystal polymer, a glass epoxy substrate, a paper phenol substrate, a flexible print substrate, a ceramic substrate, a glass containing silicon substrate, a glass substrate, and a metal substrate having a surface coated with an insulating layer”, emphasis added).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Hanya into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin to use a substrate made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate in a method for forming contact connection at least comprising of forming a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track by sintering a paste consisting at least 40% silver or copper. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to substitute equivalents known in the art for the same purpose. Specifically, Hanya teaches that the ceramic substrate of Lüdeke can be substitute with another substrate made of silicon, glass, or polyethylene naphthalate for the same purpose of providing support to any mounted components (Hanya [0059]). See MPEP § 2144.06 (II). Alternatively, the ordinary artisan, prior to the effective date of the invention would find it obvious to substitute the ceramic substrate of Lüdeke with Hanya’s substrate made of silicon, glass, or polyethylene naphthalate to obtain a predictable result of mounting conductive parts and wiring patterns (Hanya [0059]). See MPEP § 2143 (I) (B).
Regarding claim 22, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the chip arrangement according to claim 1 and further teaches the substrate to be made of ceramic (Lüdeke ¶ 0007). However, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi does not teach a method for forming contact connection wherein the substrate is made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate.
Hanya, in the same field of invention, teaches a method for forming contact connection (Fig. 2D, [0041]-[0048]: sintering) wherein the substrate 11 (Fig. 1, [0020]) is made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate ([0059]: “Any material may be used for the substrate 11… for example, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) substrate, a polycarbonate (PC) substrate, a liquid crystal polymer, a glass epoxy substrate, a paper phenol substrate, a flexible print substrate, a ceramic substrate, a glass containing silicon substrate, a glass substrate, and a metal substrate having a surface coated with an insulating layer”, emphasis added).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Hanya into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin to use a substrate made of silicon or glass or polyethylene naphthalate in a method for forming contact connection at least comprising of forming a contact connection between a chip and a conductor material track by sintering a paste consisting at least 40% silver or copper. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to substitute equivalents known in the art for the same purpose. Specifically, Hanya teaches that the ceramic substrate of Lüdeke can be substitute with another substrate made of silicon, glass, or polyethylene naphthalate for the same purpose of providing support to any mounted components (Hanya [0059]). See MPEP § 2144.06 (II). Alternatively, the ordinary artisan, prior to the effective date of the invention would find it obvious to substitute the ceramic substrate of Lüdeke with Hanya’s substrate made of silicon, glass, or polyethylene naphthalate to obtain a predictable result of mounting conductive parts and wiring patterns (Hanya [0059]). See MPEP § 2143 (I) (B).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lüdeke (US 2018/0047697 A1) and in view of Hardin (US 2015/0243812 A1) and Higashi (US 2009/0294964 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuramoto (US 2011/0186340 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach: wherein the sinter paste comprises epoxy resin and at least 80% silver and wherein the contact connection has a shear strength between 300 gf and 350 gf (Gram force).
Kuramoto, in the same field of invention, teaches a method for forming contact connection wherein the sinter paste comprises epoxy resin (¶ 0080) and at least 80% silver (¶ 0016-¶ 0017: 90-95 wt %; see also ¶ 0090: resin is no more than 10 wt %) and wherein the contact connection has a shear strength between 300 gf and 350 gf (Gram force) (see Table 4 and ¶ 0155, where shear strength ranges from 114.7gf to 911 gf).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kuramoto into the method of Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi to have the sinter paste be comprised of epoxy resin and at least 80% silver and with to have the resulting the contact connection be having a shear strength between 300 gf and 350 gf. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lüdeke in view of Hardin and Higashi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing delamination of the contact connection (Kuramoto ¶ 0155, ¶ 0157) by routinely optimizing the amount of silver relative to the amount of the epoxy resin that results in a desired shear strength value (Kuramoto Table 4 and ¶ 0156). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached on (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/JOHN M PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2899