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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0064] on page 17 of the originally filed disclosure it is suggested to delete “(” after “bond lines” and before “which”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 2, in line 2 after “medium” and before “size”, insert “particle”. 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 1-8 and 42 are 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.
In reference to claim 1, the phrase “continuous matrix-like” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Terms such as “-like” are similar to terms such as “or the like” or “and the like” which have been held to be indefinite in a claim since they extend the otherwise definite scope of terms to an indefinite scope. See Ex parte Caldwell, 1906 CD 58 (Commr. Pats. 1905); Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (BPAI 1990). See MPEP 2173.05(d). Also similar to the use of “-type” which has been held to be indefinite in a claim for these reasons. See Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(E).
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
In reference to claims 4-7, the limitation “the first metal” is recited in each of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language, it is suggested to in claim 1 line 9 after “consist of a” and before “metal”, insert “first”.
In reference to claim 42, the limitations “the larger particles” and “the smaller particles” are recited in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language, it is suggested to amend “the larger particles” to “the second amount of particles” and “the smaller particles” to “the first amount of particles”.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer et al. (US 2016/0368103) (Shearer) further taken in view of evidence by Ng et al. (US 2023/0027669) (Ng).
In reference to claims 1 and 2, Shearer teaches a metal composition including low melting point (LMP) particle composition comprising a metal element Y and high melting point (HMP) particle composition comprising metallic element M ([0024]). The composition is a high temperature solder/transient liquid phase sintering composition (Methods of making high temperature solder/TLPS compositions) (corresponding to a solder material).
The HMP metal is incorporated in the composition in a bimodal particle size distribution (i.e., small and large particles containing the HMP metal), wherein the two sizes are the same HMP metal ([0094]) (corresponding to a first amount of particles having particle sizes forming a first size distribution; a second amount of particles having particle sizes forming a second size distribution, wherein the particle sizes of the second size distribution are larger than the particle sizes of the first distribution). The smaller particles of the HMP metal serve as the HMP metal M TLPS reagent that reacts with Y, while the larger particles of HMP metal are too large to be effectively converted to intermetallic species. Therefore, larger particle size of HMP metal that function as metal additives A ([0094]).
The LMP metal Y includes Sn, Bi, Zn, In, Ga and Sb ([0089]) (corresponding to a solder base material; the solder base material comprises a metal of a second group, the second group of metals comprising: tin; indium; zinc; gallium; germanium; antimony; and bismuth). The HMP metal M includes Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Al, Co, Fe and Pt ([0088]) (corresponding to the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles consists of or essentially consists of a metal of a first group of metals, the first group of metals comprising: copper; silver; gold; palladium; platinum; iron; cobalt; and aluminum).
Given that Shearer teaches the metal of the smaller particles of the HMP, the larger particles of the HMP metal and the metal of LMP particles overlapping with the presently claimed first metal and second metal, including the smaller and larger particles of the HMP metal being the same metal and selected from metals including Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Co, Fe and Pt and the LMP metal selected from metals including Sn, Bi, Zn, Ga, In and Sb, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Co, Fe or Pt as the metal of the HMP metal and Sn, Bi, Zn, Ga, In or Sb as the metal of LMP metal, which is both disclosed by Shearer and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Shearer further teaches the average particle size of LMP metal Y is 15-50 microns and the HMP metal M is about 0.05 to about 0.5 times the average particle size of LMP metal Y (i.e., 0.75-25 microns) ([0098]-[0099]). The metal additive A is about the same size as the LMP metal Y (i.e., 15-50 microns) ([0100]) (corresponding to a median particle size of the second size distribution is at least twice as large as a median size of the first particle size distribution). Figure 4 shows the LMP metal Y forms a continuous matrix around metal additive A particles. As evidence by Ng, a solder paste forms a solder matrix made of a solderable material (i.e., tin) and intermetallic phase promoter copper particles, wherein the intermetallic particles have a diameter in a range of from 5 µm to 50 µm dispersed in the solder matrix ([0033]; [0035]; [0045]; [0047]; [0049]; [0079]; [0106]). Thus, it is clear the HMP copper particles having a particle diameter in the range of 5 to 25 microns will not be fully melted during processing and the processed composition will include a continuous matrix of LMP metal Y and metal additive A particles and HMP metal M particles (corresponding to a continuous matrix-like solder base material in which the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles are distributed).
In reference to claim 3, Shearer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shearer teaches the HMP particles have a bimodal particle distribution including smaller particles serving as the HMP particles comprising metal M that reacts with metal Y and larger particles functioning as metal additive A ([0094]) (corresponding to the first size distribution is separated from the second size distribution).
In reference to claim 4, Shearer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shearer further teaches formulation 200 and 300 are compositions including large Cu particles having an average particle size of 20 microns, small Cu particles having an average particle size of 2 microns and SAC 305 alloy (i.e., Sn96.5/Ag3.0/Cu0.5) (Tables 5 & 6). Thus, it is clear that the sum of the large Cu particles and small Cu particles is less than a total amount of Cu in the composition (corresponding to a sum of the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles is a total amount of the first metal or less).
In reference to claims 5 and 6, Shearer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shearer further teaches the formulation 200 of the composition includes 26.58% Cu particles having a particle size of 2 microns (i.e., first amount of particles), 31.81% Cu particles having a particle size of 20 microns (i.e., second amount of particles) and 36.67% SAC 305 alloy (i.e., 0.005*36.67 = 0.18335% Cu). Therefore, the small Cu particles are 45% of a total amount of Cu in the composition and the larger Cu particles are 54% of a total amount of Cu (i.e., (26.58/(26.58+31.81+0.18335))*100 = 45.38; (31.81/58.57)*100 = 54.31%) (corresponding to the first amount of particles is between 5 at% and 60 at% of a total amount of the first metal; the second amount of particles is between 10 at% and 95 at% of a total amount of the first metal).
While Shearer does not explicitly disclose the first amount of particles and second particles in at%, however, given that Shearer broadly disclose having 45 wt % of first particles and 54 wt% of second particles, it is clear that it would necessarily include the presently claimed (i.e., 5 at% to 60 at% of first particles and 10 at% to 95 at% second particles).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Alternatively, Shearer teaches the composition includes 25 wt% to 65 wt% of the HMP particle composition comprising at least one metallic element M and between 0 wt% and 40 wt% of the metal particle additive A ([0111]; [0113]). The LMP metal Y is Sn and M and A are Cu (Table 1, #1). Thus, it is clear the metal M is 38 to 100 wt% of a total amount of Cu and additive A is 0 to 62 wt% of the total amount of Cu (i.e., 25/25 = 100; 25/(25+40)*100 = 38.46%; 0/25 = 0; (40/65)*100 = 61.54%).
While Shearer does not explicitly disclose the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles in at%, however, given that Shearer broadly disclose having 25 wt % to 65 wt% of the first amount of particles and 0 wt% to 40 wt% of the second amount of particles, it is clear that it would necessarily include the presently claimed (i.e., 5 at% to 60 at% of first particles and 10 at% to 95 at% second particles).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 7, Shearer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shearer teaches the composition includes 25-65 wt% HMP metal M, 30-70 wt% LMP metal Y, 0-40 metal additive A and 1-15 wt% an organic vehicle (Table 1). The HMP metal M and metal additive are the same metal ([0094]; Table 1, #1, 3, 5). Thus, it is clear the amount of metal M is about 26-69 wt% of the composition (i.e., 100-(30+1) = 69) (corresponding to the first metal amounts to about 35 at% to about 90 at% of the solder material).
While Shearer does not explicitly disclose the first metal in at%, however, given that Shearer broadly disclose having 26 wt % to 69 wt% of the first metal, it is clear that it would necessarily include the presently claimed (i.e., about 35 at% to about 90 at%).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 8, Shearer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shearer further teaches the components of the composition are mixed together to form a printable paste ([0073] (corresponding to the solder material is configured as a solder paste).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer in view of Fujikawa et al. (JP H06-142975) (Fujikawa).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP H06-142975. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claim 42, Shearer teaches a metal composition including a mixture of low melting point (LMP) particle composition comprising a metal element Y and high melting point (HMP) particle composition comprising metallic element M ([0024]). The composition is a high temperature solder/transient liquid phase sintering composition (Methods of making high temperature solder/TLPS compositions) (corresponding to a solder material).
The HMP metal is incorporated in the composition in a bimodal particle size distribution (i.e., small and large particles containing the HMP metal), wherein the two sizes are the same HMP metal ([0094]) (corresponding to a first amount of particles having particle sizes forming a first size distribution; a second amount of particles having particle sizes forming a second size distribution, wherein the particle sizes of the second size distribution are larger than the particle sizes of the first distribution). The smaller particles of the HMP metal serve as the HMP metal M TLPS reagent that reacts with Y, while the larger particles of HMP metal are too large to be effectively converted to intermetallic species. Therefore, larger particle size of HMP metal that function as metal additives A ([0094]).
The LMP metal Y includes Sn, Bi, Zn, In, Ga and Sb ([0089]) (corresponding to a solder base material; the solder base material comprises a metal of a second group, the second group of metals comprising: tin; indium; zinc; gallium; germanium; antimony; and bismuth). The HMP metal M includes Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Al, Co, Fe and Pt ([0088]) (corresponding to the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles consists of or essentially consists of a metal of a first group of metals, the first group of metals comprising: copper; silver; gold; palladium; platinum; iron; cobalt; and aluminum). The LMP metal and HMP metal and metal additive are mixed to form the composition ([0073]; Figure 3) (corresponding to a solder base material in which the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles are distributed).
Given that Shearer teaches the metal of the smaller particles of the HMP, the larger particles of the HMP metal and the metal of LMP particles overlapping with the presently claimed first metal and second metal, including the smaller and larger particles of the HMP metal being the same metal and selected from metals including Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Co, Fe and Pt and the LMP metal selected from metals including Sn, Bi, Zn, Ga, In and Sb, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, Co, Fe or Pt as the metal of the HMP metal and Sn, Bi, Zn, Ga, In or Sb as the metal of LMP metal, which is both disclosed by Shearer and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Shearer further teaches the average particle size of LMP metal Y is 15-50 microns and the HMP metal M is about 0.05 to about 0.5 times the average particle size of LMP metal Y (i.e., 0.75-25 microns) ([0098]-[0099]). The metal additive A is about the same size as the LMP metal Y (i.e., 15-50 microns) ([0100]).
Shearer does not explicitly teach a difference between a median size of the particles of the metal additive A and a median size of the particles of the HMP metal M is larger than half of a sum of a full width of the first size distribution and a fill width of the second size distribution, as presently claimed.
Fujikawa teaches a solder paster containing solder particles ([0001]). The solder paste includes two peaks in a particle size distribution of its solder particles (i.e., bimodal particles) ([0029]). The particle side of approximately 30 µm to 50 µm is mixed with particles having a size ranging from 1 µm or more to less than 30 µm ([0029]). Thus, a sum of a full width of the first size distribution and a fill width of the second size distribution is 50 µm (i.e., 20+30 = 50).
Fujikawa further teaches the fine particles, ranging from 1 to 30 µm, fill the gaps between larger particles, ranging from 30 to 50 µm, increases the packing efficiency in the solder paste allowing for precise control of the solder thickness after melting ([0029]). Fig. 10 shows the median size of the larger particles is about 40 µm and the median side of the smaller particles is about 10 µm. Therefore, it is clear a difference between 40 µm and 10 µm is larger than half the sum of a full width of the first size distribution and a fill width of the second size distribution (i.e., 30 µm > 25 µm).
In light of the motivation of Fujikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the bimodal particles of the HPM metal M include larger particles, ranging from 30 to 50 µm, and fine particles, ranging from 1 to 30 µm, with the larger particles having an average particle size of about 40 µm and the smaller particles having an average particle size of about 10 µm, in order to increase packing efficiency and allow for precise control of the compositions thickness after melting, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment to the Specification filed 05/07/2026, the previous Drawing Objections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires a solder material comprising a continuous matrix-like solder base material in which the first amount of particles and the second amount of particles are distributed, it is noted that Shearer et al. (US 2018/0358318) (Shearer) no longer meets the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Shearer are withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Shearer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights