Attorney’s Docket Number: 223421
Filing Date: 1/31/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 2/2/2022 (JP 2022-014673)
Inventors: Kasai et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 4/20/2026.
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 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 amendment filed on 4/20/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 9 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 4 and 5.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2020/0357971) in view of Tsai (US 2023/0057113) and Tajima (US 2020/0098678).
Regarding claim 1, Lin (see, e.g., fig. 7A) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a joint structure in which an electronic component 104 and a wiring substrate 102 are joined to each other, the structure comprising:
A first layer 1201 between the component and the substrate
A second layer 1202 between the component and the substrate, and
A third layer 116 at a joint interface between the first and second layers
wherein (see, e.g., par. 0039/ll.4-15):
The first layer 1201 is composed of a first metal containing Sn
The second layer 1202 is composed of a second metal
The third layer 116 is composed of an intermetallic compound of the first and second metals
The second metal is metal containing at least Au (see, e.g., par.0039/ll.15-16)
However, Lin does not specify the thickness of the third layer.
Tsai teaches that the thickness of the third layer should be controlled to be approximately 5–10% of the thickness of the joint structure in order to improve joint yield and reliability (see, e.g., Tsai: pars. 0031-0033). Tsai, therefore, teaches that the thickness of the third layer is a result-effective variable and provides guidance for selecting an appropriate thickness to achieve improved performance.
Tajima discloses that the thickness of the third layer formed during bonding is about 1 micron under the disclosed bonding conditions, and further teaches that the thickness of the third layer is dependent on bonding time and temperature (see, e.g., Tajima: par.0036/ll.22-25). Tajima, therefore, teaches that third-layer thickness is a controllable variable. Tajima does not teach that 1 micron is critical or that thinner layers are undesirable. In view of Tsai’s teaching that controlling the thickness of the third layer improves joint yield and reliability, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the bonding parameters taught by Tajima to obtain a thinner third layer, including thicknesses within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the joint structure of Lin to control the thickness of the third layer as taught by Tsai, using the bonding process parameters taught by Tajima, in order to improve joint yield and reliability. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a desired third-layer thickness by adjusting bonding time and temperature, as taught by Tajima.
Selecting a third-layer thickness within the claimed range of 0.1–0.5 microns would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, as Tsai teaches that third-layer thickness should be controlled relative to joint thickness to obtain improved performance, and Tajima teaches how to control that thickness during bonding. The claimed thickness range therefore represents an obvious optimization of a known result-effective variable. Absent persuasive evidence that the claimed range exhibits unexpected properties commensurate in scope with the claim, optimization of such a result-effective variable would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Tsai teaches the third layer IMC2 containing AuSn4 (see, e.g., par.0057/l.18).
Regarding claim 5, Lin shows that the component 104 is a LED (see, e.g., par.0039/ll.26-27).
Response to Arguments
The applicants argue:
The examiner applies Lin as teaching that the second metal contains at least Au. However, the combination of this limitation with the claimed thickness range of 0.1-0.5 µm for the third layer provides unexpected results. Here, the claimed range of thickness provides a superior breakage strength. This is demonstrated in fig. 5 of the pending application. For instance, just below the claimed range, inferior results are achieved. Similarly, just above the claimed range, inferior results are achieved. Meanwhile, superior results are demonstrated throughout the entirety of the claimed range. Accordingly, it would not have been obvious to modify the asserted references to arrive at the claimed joint structure.
The examiner replies:
Although the applicants rely on Examples 1-3 as evidence of unexpected results, the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range of 0.1-0.5 μm. Specifically, ¶0046 of the specification states that Example 1 (0.1 μm) exhibited low breakage strength when compared to Examples 2 and 3 (0.3 μm and 0.5 μm). Thus, applicant’s own specification indicates that the lower endpoint of the claimed range does not provide the same level of performance as other claimed embodiments. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the asserted unexpected improvement extends across the entire claimed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone 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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights