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 .
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 2 and 20 recite the limitation “both sides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be interpreted as: ”The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first metal body extends across the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; the portion of the first metal body outside the functional element substrate is located on a first and a second opposing sides of the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; and the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate”.
For the purpose of examination, claim 20 will be interpreted as: ”The electronic device according to claim 19, wherein the first metal body extends across the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; the portion of the first metal body outside the functional element substrate is located on a first and a second opposing sides of the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; and the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate”.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al., (United States Patent Number, US 6,426,583 B1) hereinafter referenced as Onishi, in view of disclosed prior art, Kitayama et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2009/0148720 A1) hereinafter referenced as Kitayama, and in view of disclosed prior art Okubora (United States Patent Number, US 6,504,096 B2) hereinafter referenced as Okubora.
Regarding claim 1, Onishi teaches an electronic device comprising: a functional element substrate including a first main surface provided with a functional element that is a piezoelectric substrate or a compound semiconductor substrate (Fig.5A, element #101 is a piezoelectric substrate, column 4, rows 33-36, and has functional elements #104 and #105 on the first main surface, top surface, element #101s); a base substrate on which the functional element substrate is mounted such that a second main surface of the functional element substrate opposite to the first main surface faces the base substrate (Fig.11, base substrate, element #301, faces the bottom surface of the functional element substrate, element #303 which is equivalent to element #103 of Fig.5A); an adhesive that connects the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.11, element #302).
Onishi does not teach the adhesive is a metal connection body. Kitayama teaches a metal connection body that connects the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.3, element #53, paragraph [0059], rows 1-3, connects the bottom surface of the functional element #22 with the base substrate, element #32). Thus, both references Onishi and Kitayama teach an element that connects the functional element substrate with a base substrate. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the adhesive disclosed by Onishi could have been replaced for the metal connection body disclosed by Kitayama because both serve the same purpose of connecting the two substrates. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing strong connection between the two substrates.
Onishi further teaches a first metal body that is provided at the first main surface of the functional element substrate (Fig.11, element #305, column 11, rows 20-21), the first metal body including at least a portion that extends to outside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface (Fig.11, element #305 extends outside the left and right side of element #303).
The combination of Onishi and Kitayama does not teach a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other, the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate. Okubora teaches a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.16, via, element #20, connects the portion of the first metal body, element #16, with the base substrate, element #42, outside the functional element substrate, element #10), the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate (via is made of solder paste, column 8, rows 4-5, which have a higher thermal conductivity than the substrate disclose by Onishi which is can be lithium tantalate). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Okubora and disclose a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other, the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Okubora, providing solder vias, which have higher thermal conductivity than the piezoelectric or compound semiconductor substrates, between the base substrate and the portion of the metal body outside the substrate, allows the metal body to be grounded and thus form an electromagnetic shield surrounding the device (column 13, rows 51-54). Furthermore, the vias secure the metal body close to the functional element substrate which increases heat dissipation (column 13, rows 49-51).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first metal body extends across the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; the portion of the first metal body outside the functional element substrate is located on a first and a second opposing sides of the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface (Fig.11, element #305 extends to the right and left sides of element #303). The combination of Onishi and Kitayama does not teach wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate. Okubora teaches wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate (Fig.16, via element #20, connects the portion of the first metal body, element #16 with the base substrate, element #42, and is interposed between the portion and the base substate). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Okubora and disclose wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate. As disclosed by Okubora, providing vias on opposite sides of the device substrate, and connecting them to the first metal body allows the formation of an electromagnetic shield surrounding the device (column 13, rows 51-59).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi does not teach the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the metal connection body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate. Kitayama teaches wherein the metal connection body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate (Fig.3, element #53 extends to outside of element #22). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kitayama and disclose wherein the metal connection body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Kitayama, the metal connection body, disposed between the functional element substrate and the base substrate, may flow to the outside of the functional element substrate during the process of connecting the elements that form the electronic device (paragraph [0014], row 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi does not teach the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second metal body between the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the metal connection body. Kitayama teaches a second metal body between the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the metal connection body (Fig.3, element #23, paragraph [0047], rows 4-5, same as element #3 in Fig.5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kitayama and disclose second metal body between the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the metal connection body. As disclosed by Kitayama, the second metal body may act as a heat radiator plate (paragraph [0005], row 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi does not the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the second metal body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate. Kitayama teaches wherein the second metal body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate (Fig.3, element #23 extends to outside of element #22). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kitayama and disclose wherein the second metal body extends from inside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface to outside the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Kitayama, having the metal body extend to the outside of the substrate, helps prevent the metal connection body from reaching the substrate, thus preventing short circuits.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a support body that is provided at the second main surface of the functional element substrate (Fig.5A, element #102) the support body having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate (element #102 can be silicon, column 4, rows 47-48, while the functional element substrate, element #101 can be lithium tantalate, column 4, rows 35-36); wherein the metal connection body connects the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (as noted in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the adhesive element #302 can be replaced by the metal connection body of Kitayama) with the support body interposed between the second main surface and the base substrate (Fig.11, element #102 not numbered, is between the bottom surface of functional element substrate, element #101, not numbered, and base substrate, element #301).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi further teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the support body includes at least one of a mixture of a metal and a resin, silicon, silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, copper, and nickel (element #102 can be silicon, column 4, rows 47-48).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. In a different embodiment, Onishi teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: an insulator that covers a side surface of the functional element substrate (Fig.12, element #308). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Onishi and disclose an insulator that covers a side surface of the functional element substrate. The insulator, which, as disclosed by Onishi, can be a resin, protects the device from environmental factors such as moisture and increases the mechanical stability of the device inside the package.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the functional element substrate is a piezoelectric substrate including at least one of crystal, LiTaO3, LiNbO3, KNbO3,La3Ga5SiOi4, and Li2B407 (element #101 can be lithium tantalate or lithium niobate, column 4, rows 35-36).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Obu et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2018/0240766 A1) hereinafter referenced as Obu.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the second main surface of the functional element substrate includes a recess, and a conductive film that has a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate is located in the recess; and the conductive film is in contact with the metal connection body. Obu teaches the second main surface of the functional element substrate includes a recess (Fig.12, bottom surface of functional element substrate, element #1 has a recess), and a conductive film that has a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate is located in the recess (Fig.13, element #141 is formed of Au, paragraph [0095], rows 2-5, which has a higher thermal conductivity than the substrate which is made of GaAs, paragraph [0049], rows 1-2); and the conductive film is in contact with the connection body (Fig.19, connection body, element #1140). to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Obu and disclose wherein the second main surface of the functional element substrate includes a recess, and a conductive film that has a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate is located in the recess; and the conductive film is in contact with the connection body. As disclosed by Obu, this structure increases the peeling resistance of the substrate (paragraph [0007]).
Both Onishi and Obu teach the connection body is an adhesive. The combination of Onishi and Obu does not teach the connection body is a metal connection body. Kitayama teaches a metal connection body (Fig.3, element #53, paragraph [0059], rows 1-3, connects the bottom surface of the functional element #22 with the base substrate, element #32). Thus, all references Onishi, Obu and Kitayama teach an element that connects the functional element substrate with a base substrate. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the adhesive disclosed by Onishi and Obu could have been replaced for the solder disclosed by Kitayama because both serve the same purpose of connecting the two substrates. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing strong connection between the two substrates.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi teaches wherein the functional element substrate is a can be lithium tantalate or lithium niobate (element #101 column 4, rows 35-36). The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the functional element substrate is a compound semiconductor substrate including at least one of GaAs and GaN. Obu teaches wherein the functional element substrate is a compound semiconductor substrate including at least one of GaAs and GaN (substrate, element #1, is made of GaAs, paragraph [0049], rows 1-2). Thus, both references Onishi and Kitayama teach a piezoelectric substrate. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the lithium niobate substrate disclosed by Onishi could have been replaced for the GaAs substrate disclosed by Kitayama because both serve the same purpose of providing a substrate with piezoelectric properties. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing a substrate with piezoelectric properties.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Chen et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0074264 A1) hereinafter referenced as Chen.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the support body includes a recess or a through hole in a surface that is opposite to a surface close to the functional element substrate, and a conductive film that has higher thermal conductivity than the support body is located in the recess or the through hole; and the conductive film is in contact with the metal connection body. Chen teaches wherein the support body (Fig.4, element #24) includes a recess or a through hole in a surface that is opposite to a surface close to the functional element substrate (Fig.4, element #24 has through holes, element #28, opposite to the bottom surface of substrate, element #12), and a conductive film that has higher thermal conductivity than the support body is located in the recess or the through hole (element #28 are filled with copper, paragraph [0051], rows 11-12, which has a higher thermal conductivity than the support body, element #24 which can be made of silicon, paragraph [0048], rows 12-14); and the conductive film is in contact with the metal connection body (Fig.4, element #28 is in contact with element #34, which may be solder, paragraph [0065], rows 3-4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen and disclose wherein the support body includes a recess or a through hole in a surface that is opposite to a surface close to the functional element substrate, and a conductive film that has higher thermal conductivity than the support body is located in the recess or the through hole; and the conductive film is in contact with the metal connection body. As disclosed by Chen, the through holes may be used as heat dissipation paths or electrical connections (paragraph [0051], rows 15-17).
Claims 10, 11 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Kishimoto et al., (International Publication Number WO 2019124126 A1; the text of US 2020/0321933 A1, which has the same content as WO 2019124126 A1, is used below) hereinafter referenced as Kishimoto.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi further teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, further comprising: an insertion layer between the support body and the functional element substrate (Fig.5A, element #107). The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the insertion layer having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate and the support body. Kishimoto teaches an insertion layer between the support body and the functional element substrate (Fig.6, element #34, located between the support body, element #23, and the functional element substrate, element #5), the insertion layer having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate and the support body (element #34 may be made of SiC, paragraph [0081], rows 1-3, the support body, element #23, similar to substrate #3 in Fig.1, may be made of silicon, paragraph [0032], row 8, and the functional element substrate, element #5 may be made of lithium tantalate, paragraph [0030], rows 1-4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto and disclose an insertion layer between the support body and the functional element substrate, the insertion layer having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate and the support body. As disclosed by Kishimoto this layer can be a high acoustic velocity layer that helps trap the acoustic waves in an acoustic wave device (paragraph [0082], row 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi further teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, further comprising: an intermediate layer between the functional element substrate and the support body, the intermediate layer being in contact with the functional element substrate (Fig.5A, element #107). The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the intermediate layer having a coefficient of linear expansion that is between a coefficient of linear expansion of the functional element substrate and a coefficient of linear expansion of the support body. Kishimoto teaches the intermediate layer (Fig. element #4) having a coefficient of linear expansion that is between a coefficient of linear expansion of the functional element substrate and a coefficient of linear expansion of the support body (support body, element #23, similar to substrate #3 in Fig.1, may be made of silicon, paragraph [0032], row 8, the functional element substrate, element #5 may be made of lithium tantalate, paragraph [0030], rows 1-4 and the intermediate layer may be made of boron doped glass, paragraph [0031], row 8). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kishimoto and disclose the intermediate layer having a coefficient of linear expansion that is between a coefficient of linear expansion of the functional element substrate and a coefficient of linear expansion of the support body. As disclosed by Kishimoto, this layer can be a low acoustic velocity layer that helps trap the acoustic waves in an acoustic wave device (paragraph [0034], row 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the functional element substrate is a piezoelectric substrate (Fig.5A, element #101 is a piezoelectric substrate, column 4, rows 33-36). The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the support body is a high-acoustic-velocity support substrate through which bulk waves propagate at a higher acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate; and the electronic device further comprises a low-acoustic- velocity film between the functional element substrate and the high-acoustic-velocity support substrate and through which bulk waves propagate at a lower acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate. Kishimoto teaches the support body (Fig.6, support body, element #34) is a high-acoustic-velocity support substrate through which bulk waves propagate at a higher acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate (paragraph [0032], rows 1-5); and the electronic device further comprises a low-acoustic- velocity film between the functional element substrate and the high-acoustic-velocity support substrate (Fig.6, element #4) and through which bulk waves propagate at a lower acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate (paragraph [0031], rows 1-5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto and disclose the support body is a high-acoustic-velocity support substrate through which bulk waves propagate at a higher acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate; and the electronic device further comprises a low-acoustic- velocity film between the functional element substrate and the high-acoustic-velocity support substrate and through which bulk waves propagate at a lower acoustic velocity than acoustic waves that propagate through the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Kishimoto, this structure can form an acoustic wave device as part of a high frequency front end circuit (paragraph [0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Jiang et al., (United States Patent Number, US 6,184,064 B1) hereinafter referenced as Jiang.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the support body has a surface roughness that is larger on a surface close to the metal connection body than on a surface close to the functional element substrate. Jiang teaches wherein the support body has a surface roughness that is larger on a surface close to the metal connection body than on a surface close to the functional element substrate (Fig.4B, element #100 has the bottom surface, which is closer to the connection element #146, roughness larger than the top surface). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Jiang and disclose wherein the support body has a surface roughness that is larger on a surface close to the metal connection body than on a surface close to the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Jiang, making the surface closer to the connection body rougher reduces the possibility of delamination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Beddingfield et al., (United States Patent Number, US 8,049,119 B2) hereinafter referenced as Beddingfield.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: an electronic component that is mounted on a surface of the first metal body opposite to a surface of the first metal body close to the functional element substrate. Beddingfield teaches an electronic component that is mounted on a surface of the first metal body opposite to a surface of the first metal body close to the functional element substrate (Fig.1, electronic components element #118 are mounted on the top surface of element #132). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Beddingfield and disclose an electronic component that is mounted on a surface of the first metal body opposite to a surface of the first metal body close to the functional element substrate. The stacking of multiple electronic components allows the formation of a small footprint circuit.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora, Beddingfield and in view of Chiang et al., (United States Patent Number, US 10,593,629 B2) hereinafter referenced as Chiang.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection, and the combination of the combination of Onishi, Kitayama, Beddingfield and Okubora teaches the electronic device of claim 15 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Onishi, Kitayama, Okubora and Beddingfield and Okubora does not teach the electronic device according to claim 15, wherein the via has a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of a portion of the electronic component at which the electronic component is mounted on the surface of the first metal body. Chiang teaches wherein the via has a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of a portion of the electronic component at which the electronic component is mounted on the surface of the first metal body (element #130, which is circular as shown in Figure 3, has a larger cross-sectional area than the pads of electronic components #210 shown in Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chiang and disclose wherein the via has a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of a portion of the electronic component at which the electronic component is mounted on the surface of the first metal body. Making the cross-sectional area larger than the electronic components pads provides a large contact area which results in more reliable contacts and increases yield.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Kitayama, Okubora and in view of Ha et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0348964 A1) hereinafter referenced as Ha.
Regarding claim 19, Onishi teaches an electronic device comprising: a functional element substrate including a first main surface provided with a functional element that is a piezoelectric substrate or a compound semiconductor substrate (Fig.5A, element #101 is a piezoelectric substrate, column 4, rows 33-36, and has functional elements #104 and #105 on the first main surface, top surface, element #101s); a base substrate on which the functional element substrate is mounted such that a second main surface of the functional element substrate opposite to the first main surface faces the base substrate (Fig.11, base substrate, element #301, faces the bottom surface of the functional element substrate, element #303 which is equivalent to element #103 of Fig.5A); an adhesive that connects the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.11, element #302).
Onishi does not teach the adhesive is a metal connection body. Kitayama teaches a metal connection body that connects the second main surface of the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.3, element #53, paragraph [0059], rows 1-3, connects the bottom surface of the functional element #22 with the base substrate, element #32). Thus, both references Onishi and Kitayama teach an element that connects the functional element substrate with a base substrate. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the adhesive disclosed by Onishi could have been replaced for the solder disclosed by Kitayama because both serve the same purpose of connecting the two substrates. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing strong connection between the two substrates.
Onishi further teaches a first metal body that is provided at the first main surface of the functional element substrate (Fig.11, element #305, column 11, rows 20-21), the first metal body including at least a portion that extends to outside the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface (Fig.11, element #305 extends outside the left and right side of element #303).
The combination of Onishi and Kitayama does not teach a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other, the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate. Okubora teaches a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other (Fig.16, via, element #20, connects the portion of the first metal body, element #16, with the base substrate, element #42, outside the functional element substrate, element #10), the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate (via is made of solder paste, column 8, rows 4-5, which have a higher thermal conductivity than the substrate disclose by Onishi which is can be lithium tantalate). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Okubora and disclose a via that connects the portion of the first metal body provided outside the functional element substrate and the base substrate to each other, the via having a higher thermal conductivity than the functional element substrate. As disclosed by Okubora, providing solder vias, which have higher thermal conductivity than the piezoelectric or compound semiconductor substrates, between the base substrate and the portion of the metal body outside the substrate, allows the metal body to be grounded and thus form an electromagnetic shield surrounding the device (column 13, rows 51-54). Furthermore, the vias secure the metal body close to the functional element substrate which increases heat dissipation (column 13, rows 49-51).
Okubora teaches the vias are made of solder paste. The combination of the Onishi, Kitayama and Okubora does not teach a via including at least of one of a copper-based conductive paste hardened material and a silver-based conductive paste solidified material. Ha teaches vias including at least of one of a copper-based conductive paste hardened material and a silver-based conductive paste solidified material (Fig.8, elements #25, paragraph [0046], rows 1-10). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Ha and disclose a via including at least of one of a copper-based conductive paste hardened material and a silver-based conductive paste solidified material. As disclosed by Ha, the silver paste is a material generally used as a conductive adhesive or as an electronic ink, (paragraph [0043], row 3-5).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Onishi, Kitayama, Okubora and Ha teaches the electronic device of claim 19 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Onishi teaches the electronic device according to claim 19, wherein the first metal body extends across the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface; the portion of the first metal body outside the functional element substrate is located on a first and a second opposing sides of the functional element substrate in plan view from the first main surface (Fig.11, element #305 extends to the right and left sides of element #303). The combination of Onishi and Kitayama does not teach wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate. Okubora teaches wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate (Fig.16, via element #20, connects the portion of the first metal body, element #16, with the base substrate, element #42, and is interposed between the portion and the base substate). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Okubora and disclose wherein the portion of the first metal body on the first and the second sides is connected to the base substrate with the via interposed between the portion and the base substrate. As disclosed by Okubora, providing vias on opposite sides of the device substrate, and connecting them to the first metal body allows the formation of an electromagnetic shield surrounding the device (column 13, rows 51-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899