DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 08/06/2025.
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, 3-8, 13-16, and 19-21. Claim 2 was 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.
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, 3-4, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (US 6388321) in view of Sakurai (US 2010/0052189).
Regarding claim 1, Hirai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a circuit module, comprising:
A first circuit component 1 having a first surface on which a plurality of electrode pads 2 is arranged
A second circuit component 7 having a second surface on which a plurality of electrode pads 6 is arranged
A conductive bonding material 3
A first reinforcing bonding material 5
A second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a made of a material different from the conductive bonding material 3 and different from the first reinforcing bonding material 5
wherein
The first circuit component 1 and the second circuit component 7 are arranged such that the plurality of electrode pads 2 of the first circuit component 1 respectively face the plurality of electrode pads 6 of the second circuit component 7
The conductive bonding material 3 joins the plurality of electrode pads 2 of the first circuit component 1 to the plurality of electrode pads 6 of the second circuit component 7 respectively
The first reinforcing bonding material 5 is not in contact with the conductive bonding material 3 and joins the first surface of the first circuit component 1 to the second surface of the second circuit component 7
The second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a covers a periphery of the conductive bonding material 3 and is located in a range in contact with the first reinforcing bonding material 5
The second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a joins the first surface of the first circuit component 1 to the second surface of the second circuit component 7
The plurality of electrode pads 2 of the first circuit component 1 are arranged to form a row linearly arranged along a longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material 5
An end of the first reinforcing bonding material 5 in the longitudinal direction is located adjacent to an end of the row in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material 5
Hirai, however, fails to show that the conductive bonding material is made of a mixture of conductive material and resin. Hirai further shows that the metal bump is made of solder (see, e.g., Hirai: col.3/II.21-23). Sakurai, in a similar device to Hirai, also teaches (see, e.g., Sakurai: figs. 2B-2E) that the material of the conductive bond 13 is made of conductive material 13a and resin 13b (see, e.g., Sakurai: par. [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the conductive bonding material made of solder of Hirai or the conductive bonding material made of conductive material and resin of Sakurai because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as conductive materials in conductive bumps for semiconductor packages, as taught by Hirai and by Sakurai, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows that:
The plurality of electrode pads 2 of the first circuit component 1 are arranged to form a row linearly arranged along a first direction on the first surface of the first circuit component 1
The plurality of electrode pads 6 of the second circuit component 7 are linearly arranged along the first direction at a position facing the row
The first reinforcing bonding material 5 is located at a position offset from the row in a second direction that intersects the first direction
The first reinforcing bonding material 5 is continuously distributed in the first direction from a position of one end of the row to a position of the other end of the row
Regarding claim 4, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows that:
The plurality of electrode pads 2 of the first circuit component 1 are arranged to form a first row linearly arranged along a first direction and a second row linearly arranged along the first direction at a position offset in a second direction intersecting the first direction, on the first surface of the first circuit component 1
The plurality of electrode pads 6 of the second circuit component 7 are arranged to form a third row linearly arranged along the first direction at a position facing the first row and a fourth row linearly arranged along the first direction at a position facing the second row
The first reinforcing bonding material 5 is arranged between the first row and the second row in the second direction
Regarding claim 19, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows that the first reinforcing bonding material 5 is continuously extended to outside of the end of the row in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material 5.
Regarding claim 20, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows that:
A first distance is defined between the end of the first reinforcing bonding material 5 and the end of the row in the longitudinal direction
A second distance is defined between the first reinforcing bonding material 5 and the row in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction
The first distance is greater than the second distance
Relationships between the distances are equivalent to ranges. However, differences in distances will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of distances, and Hirai has identified such distances as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows that:
The plurality of electrode pads 2/6 arranged to form the row include a first electrode pad at the end of the row and a second electrode pad which is closest to the first electrode pad
Adjacent is defined as the first electrode pad 2/6 is closer to a closest part of the end in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material 5 than the first electrode pad 2/6 is to the second electrode pad 2/6
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Nagase (US 2014/0015452).
Regarding claim 5, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a first circuit component 1 and a second circuit component 7.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails to show that one of the first circuit component 1 and the second circuit component 7 has a gate switching element.
Nagase, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Nagase: fig. 3) that one of the first circuit component 21 and the second circuit component 110 has a gate switching element Q1-Q6 (see, e.g., Nagase: par. [0029]). Nagase further shows that a gate switching element Q1-Q6 in one of the first circuit component 21 and the second circuit component 110 provides an inverter device 10 that decreases wire inductance between an input electrode or an output electrode and an element group on a substrate (see, e.g., Nagase: par. [0004] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the gate switching element in one of the first circuit component and the second circuit component in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Nagase, to provide an inverter device that decreases wire inductance between an input electrode or an output electrode and an element group on a substrate.
Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Nagase further shows (see, e.g., Nagase: fig. 3) that:
The other of the first circuit component 21 and the second circuit component 110 has a gate control circuit 111 that controls a gate voltage of the gate switching element (see, e.g., Nagase: par. [0029] and [0048]) (MPEP 2112.01(I))
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Sugino (US 2009/0321919).
Regarding claim 6, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including the conductive bonding material 3 and the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify that the coefficient of linear expansion of the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a is higher than a coefficient of linear expansion of the conductive bonding material 3.
Sugino, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Sugino: fig. 1) that the coefficient of linear expansion of the second reinforcing bonding material (underfill) 6 is higher than a coefficient of linear expansion of the conductive bonding material (bump) 5 (see, e.g., Sugino: par. [0216]). Sugino also teaches that the difference in the linear expansion coefficient between the underfill 6 and the bump 5 is 10 ppm/degree.C or less (see, e.g., Sugino: par. [0035]). Sugino further teaches that controlling the difference in linear expansion coefficient between the underfill and the bump can suppress distortion generated between the underfill and the bump (see, e.g., Sugino: par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the second reinforcing bonding material with a linear expansion coefficient higher than the linear expansion coefficient of the conductive bonding material in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Sugino, to control the difference in linear expansion coefficient between the underfill and the bump that can suppress distortion generated between the underfill and the bump.
Relationships between the coefficients of linear expansion for different materials are equivalent to ranges. However, differences in the coefficients of linear expansion of the second reinforcing bonding material and the conductive material will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such linear expansion coefficient values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 15) of the coefficient of linear expansion, and Sugino has identified such a coefficient of linear expansion as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai.
Regarding claim 7, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including the conductive bonding material 3 and the first reinforcing bonding material 5.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify that the coefficient of linear expansion of the first reinforcing bonding material 5 is lower than a coefficient of linear expansion of the conductive bonding material 3.
Sugino, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Sugino: fig. 1) that the difference in the linear expansion coefficient between the underfill 6 and the bump 5 is 10 ppm/degree.C or less (see, e.g., Sugino: par. [0035]), thus the difference in the linear expansion coefficient between the underfill 6 and the bump 5 can have negative values, which means that the coefficient of linear expansion of the first reinforcing bonding material (as an underfill) 6 is lower than a coefficient of linear expansion of the conductive bonding material (bump) 5. Sugino further teaches that controlling the difference in linear expansion coefficient between the underfill and the bump can suppress distortion generated between the underfill and the bump (see, e.g., Sugino: par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first reinforcing bonding material with a linear expansion coefficient higher than the linear expansion coefficient of the conductive bonding material in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Sugino, to control the difference in linear expansion coefficient between the underfill and the bump that can suppress distortion generated between the underfill and the bump.
Relationships between the coefficients of linear expansion for different materials are equivalent to ranges. However, differences in the coefficients of linear expansion of the first reinforcing bonding material and the conductive material will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such linear expansion coefficient values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 15) of the coefficient of linear expansion, and Sugino has identified such a coefficient of linear expansion as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Hannan (US 2002/0162679).
Regarding claim 8, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including the first reinforcing material 5 and the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify that the coefficient of linear expansion of the first reinforcing bonding material 5 is higher than half of a coefficient of linear expansion of the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a.
Hannan, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Hannan: fig. 10) that the linear expansion coefficient of the first reinforcing bonding material (underfill) 410 and the linear expansion coefficient of the second reinforcing bonding material (underfill) 450 are different (see, e.g., claim 13), thus the linear expansion coefficient between the underfill 410 can be higher than the half of the linear expansion coefficient of the underfill 410. Hannan further teaches that underfill layers 410 and 450 are between the substrates to mitigate failure caused by the mismatch in the coefficient of thermal expansion, in order to reinforce the interconnect and to absorb some of the stress of thermal cycling (see, e.g., Hannan: par. [0006] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first reinforcing bonding material with a linear expansion coefficient higher than half of the linear expansion coefficient of the second reinforcing bonding material in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Hannan, to reinforce the interconnect and to absorb some of the stress of thermal cycling.
Relationships between the coefficients of linear expansion for different materials are equivalent to ranges. However, differences in the coefficients of linear expansion of the first reinforcing bonding material and the second reinforcing bonding material will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such linear expansion coefficient values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 15) of the coefficient of linear expansion, and Hannan has identified such a coefficient of linear expansion as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Katchmar (US 6194782).
Regarding claim 13, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including the first reinforcing material 5 and the conductive bonding material 3.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify that the first reinforcing bonding material 5 is made from the same material as the conductive bonding material 3.
Katchmar, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Katchmar: fig. 4) that the first reinforcing bonding material 26 is made from the same material (eutectic solder) as the conductive bonding material 24 (see, e.g., Katchmar: col.6/II.64-67, and col.8/II.8-11). Katchmar further teaches that the first reinforcing material 26 is an adhesive mass located on the bottom of the package substrate, and it replaces the conductive terminations in the area where the joint strain energy density is calculated to be the greatest, thus increasing the mechanical and electrical reliability (see, e.g., Katchmar: abstract, and col.3/II.20-25).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first reinforcing bonding material made from the same material as the conductive bonding material in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Katchmar, to replace the conductive terminations in the area where the joint strain energy density is calculated to be the greatest, thus increasing the mechanical and electrical reliability.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Liang (US 11355361).
Regarding claim 14, Hirai in view of Sakurai (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a conductive bonding material 3, a first circuit component 1 and a second circuit component 7 facing each other.
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify that a ratio of an area of a bonding range by the conductive bonding material 3 to an area of a facing portion where the first circuit component 1 and the second circuit component 7 face each other is less than or equal to 15%.
Liang, in a similar device to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Liang: fig. 8) that the bump density β effectively represents a ratio of an area occupied by the solder bumps Sb to the area of the element Ei from a top view of the element Ei (see, e.g., Liang: col.8/II.4-6), thus the bump density β represents the claimed ratio. Liang also teaches that the bump density β has a maximum value equal to π/4 (equal to 79%) (see, e.g., Liang: col.9/II.21-22). Liang further teaches that the bump density (claimed ratio) is an important factor in obtaining a driving force and a flow speed of the underfill material (see, e.g., Liang: col.1/II.48-59).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ratio of an area of a bonding range by the conductive bonding material to an area of a facing portion where the first circuit component and the second circuit component face each other in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Liang, to obtain a driving force and a flow speed of the underfill material.
However, differences in the ratio of an area of a bonding range by the conductive bonding material to an area of a facing portion where the first circuit component and the second circuit component face each other will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ratio values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 15) of the ratio, and Liang has identified such a ratio as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Hirai in view of Sakurai.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in further view of Kurashima (JP 2005-142210 A).
Regarding claim 15, Hirai in view of Sakurai shows (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) most aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing the circuit module, comprising a first circuit component 1 and a second circuit component 7.
Hirai in view of Sakurai shows (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) that:
The second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a is made of a material different from the conductive bonding material 3 and the first reinforcing bonding material 5
The second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a covers a periphery of the conductive bonding material 3 and is distributed in a range in contact with the first reinforcing bonding material 5 and that the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a is in contact with the first surface of the first circuit component 1 and the second surface of the second circuit component 7
Hirai in view of Sakurai, however, fails (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) to specify the method step of disposing the conductive bonding material 3 and the first reinforcing bonding material 5 between the first circuit component 1 and the second circuit component 7. Kurashima, in a similar method to Hirai in view of Sakurai, teaches (see, e.g., Kurashima: figs. 1-3) the method step of disposing the conductive bonding material 5 and the first reinforcing bonding material 3 between the first circuit component 2 and the second circuit component 4 (see, e.g., Kurashima: figs. 1d and 2, and par. [0029]). Kurashima further teaches (see, e.g., Kurashima: figs. 1-3) that the method step of disposing the conductive bonding material 5 and the first reinforcing bonding material 3 between the first circuit component 2 and the second circuit component 4 is to control the gap between the second circuit component 4 and the first circuit component 2, and improve the absorption of the warp of the second circuit component 4, while soldering the joint between the connecting portion 2a and the terminal portion 4a (see, e.g., Kurashima: par. [0033]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method step of disposing the conductive bonding material and the first reinforcing bonding material between the first circuit component and the second circuit component in the method of Hirai in view of Sakurai, as taught by Kurashima, to control the gap between the second circuit component and the first circuit component, and improve the absorption of the warp of the second circuit component, while soldering the joint.
Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Kurashima further teaches (see, e.g., Kurashima: figs. 1-3) the method steps of:
Heating a laminate of the first circuit component 2 and the second circuit component 4 such that the conductive bonding material 5 is fixed to the plurality electrode pads 2a of the first circuit component 2 and the electrode pads 4a of the second circuit component 4 and that the first reinforcing bonding material 3 is fixed to the first surface of the first circuit component 2 and the second surface of the second circuit component 4 (see, e.g., Kurashima: fig. 1d, and par. [0033] – [0034])
Applying a second reinforcing bonding material 6 between the first surface of the first circuit component 2 and the second surface of the second circuit component 4 (see, e.g., Kurashima: fig. 1f, and par. [0037])
Heating the laminate such that second reinforcing bonding material 6 is fixed to the first surface of the first circuit component 2 and the second surface of the second circuit component 4 (see, e.g., Kurashima: fig. 1f, and par. [0038])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Kurashima in further view of Katchmar (US 6194782).
Regarding claim 16, Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Kurashima (see, e.g., Kurashima: figs. 1-3) teaches the methos steps of:
The disposing of the conductive bonding material 5 and the first reinforcing bonding material 3 between the first circuit component 2 and the second circuit component 4
Applying the conductive bonding material 5 and the first reinforcing bonding material 3, at a same time, to one of the first surface of the first circuit component 2 and the second surface of the second circuit component 4
The combination of the Hirai reference and the Kurashima reference does not explicitly teach that the first reinforcing bonding material is made of a same material as the conductive bonding material. However, Katchmar, in a similar device/method to Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Kurashima, teaches (see, e.g., Katchmar: fig. 4) that the first reinforcing bonding material 26 is made from the same material (eutectic solder) as the conductive bonding material 24 (see, e.g., Katchmar: col.6/II.64-67, and col.8/II.8-11). Katchmar further teaches that the first reinforcing material 26 is an adhesive mass located on the bottom of the package substrate, and it replaces the conductive terminations in the area where the joint strain energy density is calculated to be the greatest, thus increasing the mechanical and electrical reliability (see, e.g., Katchmar: abstract, and col.3/II.20-25).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings of Hirai in view of Sakurai in view of Kurashima to further include the teaching of Katchmar in order to replace the conductive terminations in the area where the joint strain energy density is calculated to be the greatest, thus increasing the mechanical and electrical reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the previous grounds of rejection.
The applicants argue:
Hirai fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious the limitation of “… a second reinforcing bonding material made of a material different from the conductive bonding material and different from the first reinforcing bonding material”, as it was previously recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous grounds of rejection, Hirai shows clearly (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) that the second reinforcing bonding material 4/4a made of a material different from the conductive bonding material 3 and different from the first reinforcing bonding material 5 (the materials are specified in fig.2)
The applicants argue:
Hirai fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious the limitation of “… a conductive bonding material made of a mixture of conductive material and resin”, as it was previously recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Hirai in view of Sakurai shows clearly (see, e.g., Sakurai: figs. 2B-2E) that material of the conductive bond is made of conductive material and resin. Sakurai, in a similar device to Hirai, also teaches (see, e.g., Sakurai: figs. 2B-2E) that the material of the conductive bond 13 is made of conductive material 13a and resin 13b (see, e.g., Sakurai: par. [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the conductive bonding material made of solder of Hirai or the conductive bonding material made of conductive material and resin of Sakurai because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as conductive materials in conductive bumps for semiconductor packages, as taught by Hirai and by Sakurai, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The applicants argue:
Hirai fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious the limitation of “… an end of the first reinforcing bonding material in the longitudinal direction is located adjacent to an end of the row in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material”, as it was previously recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Hirai in view of Sakurai shows clearly (see, e.g., Hirai: figs. 1-3) that an end of the first reinforcing bonding material in the longitudinal direction is located adjacent to an end of the row in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material.
Longitudinal and transversal distances are relative concepts and are defined with respect to a chosen core axis of the structure. All depends of the chosen core axis of the structure. Longitudinal distance is parallel to the core axis, and transversal distance is perpendicular to the core axis. For example, in the annotated fig. 1 (see below) of the Hirai reference, if the chosen core axis of the structure is the axis A, then any direction parallel to axis A is longitudinal, and an end of the first reinforcing bonding material in the longitudinal direction is located adjacent to an end of the row in the longitudinal direction of the first reinforcing bonding material, as recited in the claim 1. Also, claims 20-21 are rejected based on the chosen axes A or B from the annotated fig. 1 (see below) of the Hirai reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
1019
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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