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 .
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 112(b), indefiniteness, since claim 11 (from which they depend) does not recited a copper substrate, and claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the copper substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4,6,7,9,11-14,18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2009-221363.
JP discloses a semiconductor device that uses copper bumps/pillars in manufacture of its flip chip device. The adhesive composition, which bonds the copper bumps and the substrate and/or the underfill, comprises an epoxy resin, an amine curing agent, an inorganic filler, and 0.1-5 parts by weight of a sulfide silane compound. The preferred compounds [0027] are seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
46
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is Bis(3-triethoxysilyl-propyl) disulfide
PNG
media_image2.png
38
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is Bis(3-triethoxysilyl-propyl) tetrasulfide
Note that when examining the examples, specifically comparative examples 1 and 2 which do not contain any amount of silane compound, the adhesive test contain peeling indicated by the “0” in the test results. Hence, one would naturally conclude that the silane is responsible for the improvement in adhesion with the copper.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al-US 2011/0094656 in view of Hempel et al-WO 2011/092278.
Ferrari discloses connecting of metal tubes via an adhesive composition. The tubes can be copper and copper, copper and aluminum or aluminum and aluminum, see 0022-0024. The adhesive composition can consist of an epoxy resin, a polyurethane or an acrylate resin adhesive.
Ferrari fails to teach the use of the claimed adhesion promoter.
Hempel discloses a primer composition which consists mainly of epoxy resin, which is applied to metal substrates, which also contains adhesion promoters. See page 11 which discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
232
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Obviously, adhesion promoters are used to improve the adhesion of the resin material to the coated surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use/make the adhered copper substrate as disclosed in Ferrari and to have added the sulfur silanes of Hempel, to improve the adhesion of the resins in the Ferrari, as taught by Hempel.
Claim(s) 5,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al-US 2011/0094656 in view of Van Ooij et al-WO 99/67444.
The disclosure of Ferrari above is applied here as such.
The Ferrari reference fails to disclose the use of the claimed adhesion promoter on the substrate before application of the adhesive.
Van Ooij discloses the prevention of corrosion of metals by the solvent application of bis-functional polysulfur silanes. Seen below:
PNG
media_image4.png
136
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
126
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
496
834
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use/make the article of Ferrari and to pretreat the metal surfaces with the solution of Van Ooij to improve the corrosion resistance of those metal surfaces as taught by Van Ooij.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY P GULAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1302. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4pm.
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, Randy P Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766