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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/202/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wong, C., et al., (Thiol based chemical treatment as adhesion promoter for Cu-epoxy interface 2008 International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging (ICEPT-HDP 2008)) in view of XY in further view of Konczol, L., et al., (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 54,815-826 (1994)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, C., et al., (Thiol based chemical treatment as adhesion promoter for Cu-epoxy interface 2008 International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging (ICEPT-HDP 2008)) in view of Rubinsztajn US 20050048700A1 in further view of Konczol, L., et al., (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 54,815-826 (1994)).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a proprietary thiol added to a copper surface and an epoxy based underfill that is then bonded to the thiol coated substrate (Wong, Page 2). This reads on the claimed first layer comprising an adhesion promoter. Wong also teaches the epoxy based underfill is Hysol® FP4526. However, Wong is silent on the components of the underfill composition Hysol® FP4526. Wong teaches the copper epoxide composite is used in integrated circuit packaging (Page 1).
Rubinsztajn teaches an epoxy underfill composition used in semiconductor packaging systems (Abstract, Paragraph [0052]). Rubinsztajn teaches the epoxy underfill composition comprises an epoxy resin (Paragraph [0005]), a hardener (Paragraph [0007]), and Rubinsztajn also teaches the composition comprises an optional organic compound containing hydroxyl moiety (Paragraph [0031]). Rubinsztajn teaches this organic compound containing a hydroxyl moiety is ethylene glycol (Paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to select ethylene glycol because it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
This reads on the claimed “polyhydric alcohol.” Rubinsztajn is silent on the incorporation of a polycaprolactone polysiloxane block copolymer.
Rubinsztajn teaches that the composition can comprise a toughening additive (Paragraph [0083]) but is silent on the toughening additive.
Konczol teaches that there is an advantage to adding polycaprolactone polysiloxane block copolymers to epoxy resins (Abstract). Konczol teaches that the addition of such polymers increases the toughness of the epoxy resins without adversely affecting thermal or mechanical properties (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the polycaprolactone polysiloxane into the composition of Rubinsztajn as the toughening agent additive for the advantage of the increased toughness without affecting the thermal or mechanical properties. This reads on the claimed polycaprolactone polysiloxane block copolymer.
It would have been obvious to use the epoxy underfill composition of Rubinsztajn in view of Konczol as the underfill composition of Wong because the epoxy underfill composition of Rubinsztajn is known in the art as a suitable epoxy underfill composition used in the same applications as Wong. This represents the use of a suitable epoxy underfill resin composition in a similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 11, Wong teaches the underfill composition is cured (Page 3). This reads on the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Rubinsztajn teaches the epoxy underfill composition comprises an epoxy resin. Rubinsztajn teaches the epoxy resin can be a bisphenol A resin (Paragraph [0011]). Rubinsztajn also teaches the compound comprises an organic compound containing a hydroxyl moiety which is ethylene glycol (Paragraph [0033]). This reads on the claimed “ethylene glycol.”
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, C., et al., (Thiol based chemical treatment as adhesion promoter for Cu-epoxy interface 2008 International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging (ICEPT-HDP 2008)) in view of Rubinsztajn US 20050048700A1 and Konczol, L., et al., (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 54,815-826 (1994)) in further view of Wong, C., et al., (Thiol-based self-assembly nanostructures in promoting interfacial adhesion for copper-epoxy joint, Applied Physical Letters, 94, 2009).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wong is silent on the proprietary thiol compound. However, Wong, C., et al., (Thiol-based self-assembly nanostructures in promoting interfacial adhesion for copper-epoxy joint, Applied Physical Letters, 94, 2009), henceforth referred to as Wong (2) teaches 4-aminothiophenol as an adhesion promoter to promote bonding in copper-epoxy interfaces. 4-aminothiophenol reads on the limitations of claimed formula IV where R7 is a substituted hydrocarbyl compound comprising 6 carbons. This falls within the claimed range of 1-20 carbon atoms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the thiol compound of Wong to be the compound of Wong (2) as Wong (2) is shown to be a suitable adhesion promoting thiol compound used in the same composition for the same application. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong, C., et al., (Thiol based chemical treatment as adhesion promoter for Cu-epoxy interface 2008 International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging (ICEPT-HDP 2008)) in view of Rubinsztajn US 20050048700A1 and Konczol, L., et al., (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 54,815-826 (1994)) in further view of Shih, W., (American Semiconductor Is Taking A Step Towards U.S. Domestic Chip Packaging (retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyshih/2022/01/09/american-semiconductor-is-taking-a-step-towards-us-domestic-chip-packaging/, 2022)
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Wong teaches the composition is used in integrated circuit (IC) packages. IC packages are used in electric motors. IC packages are used to protect the microchips from the surrounding extreme environment (Shih, Page 2). It would have been obvious to use the IC package of Wong as panel in an electric motor for the purpose of protecting the microchips in the electric motor from the surrounding environment. This reads on the claimed “panel.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8 and 10 are 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Wong is silent on the thiol compound being a cysteine or any of the compounds listed in claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Wong is silent on the epoxy composition comprising 100 parts by weight of a first component comprising an epoxy resin and 10-30 parts by weight of a second component comprising a curing agent. Therefore, Wong does not read on the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Wong is silent on the epoxy composition comprising 100 parts by weight of a first component and 70-100 parts by weight of a second component comprising a curing agent. Therefore, Wong does not read on the limitations of claim 8.
Relevant Prior Art
Glodde (Glodde M., et. al., Adhesion promotors for gold: Bis-(u-aminoalkyl)-disulfides, International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 18 (1998) 359-364) teaches adhesion bonding of epoxy resins to gold is difficult (Introduction, Page 359). Glodde teaches sulfur containing compounds bonded to a gold surface. Glodde teaches the sulfur containing compound has the structure of Scheme 2
PNG
media_image1.png
62
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Page 359), is bonded to gold. However, Glodde is silent on the sulfur compounds comprising thiol groups. Therefore while Glodde teaches an epoxy resin compound bonded to an adhesion promoting layer comprising a compound comprising sulfur and an amine substituted alkyl group (Page 359), Glodde does not teach the limitations of claim 2.
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 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 LILY K SLOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/LILY K SLOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights