DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/15/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 14-16. Claims 2-3, 13, and 17 were cancelled by the Applicant.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakako (US 2020/0344893) in view of Aoki (US 2018/0061797).
Regarding claim 1, Nakako shows (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device 50/100, comprising:
A first electrode 11, wherein the first electrode 11 is an electrode of a semiconductor element 12 (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0100])
A bump 30/31 containing metal nanoparticles as a component (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116])
A bump 31 formed on the electrode 11
A second electrode 21, wherein the second electrode 21 is an electrode of a wiring board 22 (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0104])
Nakako, however, fails (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c) to specify a connection formed between the bump 30/31 and the second electrode 21. Aoki, in a similar device to Nakako, teaches (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) a connection 24 formed between the bump 30 and an electrode 14. Aoki also shows (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) that the connections provide miniaturization of the connecting terminal pitch and bump size (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 1 and par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the connection of Aoki in the device of Nakako in order to minimize the connecting terminal pitch and bump size.
Nakako in view of Aoki also (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) shows that the connection contains other metal nanoparticles as a component (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024] – [0025]) (the Aoki reference shows (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024] – [0025]) that the connection 24 contains other types of nanoparticles made of, for example, silver, when the Nakako reference shows (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116]) that the bump 30/31 contains nanoparticles made of copper)
Regarding claim 4, Nakako in view of Aoki shows (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c) that the bump 30/31 is formed by sintering the metal nanoparticles that are applied (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Nakako in view of Aoki shows (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c) that the bump 30/31 contains at least one type of element of gold, silver, copper, or palladium as the metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakako in view of Aoki shows (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c) that the bump 30/31 is a mixture of metal microparticles containing at least one type of element of gold silver, copper, or palladium and the metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakako in view of Aoki (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) shows that the connection is formed by sintering the other metal nanoparticles that are applied (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024] – [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakako in view of Aoki (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c and see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) show that the metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092]) and the other metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024]) contain the same type of element (both references show that the nanoparticles could be made of copper).
Regarding claim 16, Nakako in view of Aoki (see, e.g., Nakako: figs. 1a and 1c and see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) show that the metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092]) and the other metal nanoparticles (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024]) contain the different types of elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the old grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. Examiner believes that the previous combination of Nakako in view of AoKi references discloses the amended limitations. The applicability of Nakako in view of AoKi references to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections above.
The applicants argue:
Nakano fails to anticipates or otherwise render obvious the limitation of "… a connection containing other metal nanoparticles as a component, the connection formed between the bump and another electrode …”, as recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous grounds of rejection, Nakano in view of Aoki teaches a connection 24 formed between the bump 30 and an electrode 14. Moreover, Aoki, in a similar device to Nakako, teaches (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) a connection 24 formed between the bump 30 and an electrode 14. Aoki also shows (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) that the connections provide miniaturization of the connecting terminal pitch and bump size (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 1 and par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the connection of Aoki in the device of Nakako in order to minimize the connecting terminal pitch and bump size.
The applicants argue:
Aoki fails to anticipates or otherwise render obvious the limitation of "… a connection containing other metal nanoparticles as a component, the connection formed between the bump and a second electrode …”, as recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous grounds of rejection, Nakako in view of Aoki also (see, e.g., Aoki: fig. 8) shows that the connection contains other metal nanoparticles as a component (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024] – [0025]) (the Aoki reference shows (see, e.g., Aoki: par. [0024] – [0025]) that the connection 24 contains other types of nanoparticles made of, for example, silver, when the Nakako reference shows (see, e.g., Nakako: par. [0092], [0108], and [0116]) that the bump 30/31 contains nanoparticles made of copper). Also, it is clear that there is an electrical connection between the bump 30/31 and the second electrode 21 (both are from conductive materials, and the electrode 21 is connected to a wiring board for electrical signals).
Conclusion
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814