DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “depositing a sintering material onto one of an electronic component and a substrate” in lines 4-5, and “fastening another of the electronic component and the substrate” in line 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “depositing a portion of the sintering material onto one of an electronic component and a substrate” in lines 9-10, and “fastening another of the electronic component and the substrate” in line 13.
In claim 13, line 10, the limitation “a substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis. Changing “a substrate” to -- the substrate-- provides proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a deposit of a sintering material onto one of an electronic component and a substrate” in line 9, and “a fastening of another of the electronic component and the substrate to the sintering material” in lines 13-14.
Since the electronic component as recited in claim 1, in lines 4 and 10, as recited in claim 13, in lines 9 and 13, and are recited in claim 14m, lines 9 and 13 is the same electronic component, it is not clear the use of adjective “one of” as recited in line 4 and “another of” in line 10 because it is confusing whether more than electronic component is being claimed.
According Fig. 4 of the instant application, the electronic component 28 and the substrate is 30 and the sintering material 26 is disposed on between the electronic component 28 and the substrate 30. In light of the disclosure of the instant application, changing “one of an electronic component” to --an electronic component-- and “another of the electronic component” to --the electronic component-- provides clarity and consistancty throughout the claim
Claim 4 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 1, wherein the depositing takes place by forming with the sintering material beads in mutual contact” in lines 1-3.
However, the aforementioned limitation appears incomplete. It is not clear that how and where the “beds” are in the mutual contact with what. In addition, it is not clear how and where beds are formed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “heating the portion by exposing the portion to a temperature higher than the first value and lower than the second value, fastening another of the electronic component and the substrate to the portion so that the portion is interposed between the electronic component and the substrate; and pressing the portion while hot so as to cause the portion to creep” in lines 11-16.
However, there is a lack of a proper antecedent basis for “the portion” in the claim.
Since “portion” related with “the sintering material,” changing “the portion” to “the portion of the sintering material” throughout the claim provides proper antecedent basis and clarity in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein a diameter of each bead of the plurality of beads is between 100 mm and 300 mm” in lines 1-2.
However, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the plurality of beads” in the claim. In order to provide proper antecedent basis, Applicant can amend claim 4 in order to provide proper language and antecedent basis for the clam or delete “plurality of” in claim 16. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the claims’ structure to ensure proper claim construction and to correct any subsequently discovered instances of claim language noncompliance. See Morton International Inc., 28USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (CAFC, 1993).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “heating means” and “means configured to control a deposition... heating… fastening... pressuring …,” in claim 14, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The speciation as well as the drawings do not clearly show how and the control means enabled to perform all the process function claimed in claim 14. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “heating the sintering material so as to bring a temperature of the sintering material to a preliminary exothermic peak which precedes an exothermic sintering peak without the temperature of the sintering material reaching a maximum of the preliminary exothermic peak; fastening [[another of]] the electronic component and the substrate to the sintering material so that the sintering material is interposed between the electronic component and the substrate; and pressing the sintering material while hot so as to cause the sintering material to creep,” as recited in claim 1, “heating a test sample of a sintering material by exposing the test sample to an increasing temperature and measuring a temperature of the sintering material and detecting a first heating temperature value corresponding to a start of a preliminary exothermic peak which precedes an exothermic sintering peak and a second heating temperature value corresponding to a maximum of the preliminary exothermic peak; depositing a portion of the sintering material onto [[one of]] an electronic component and [the] substrate; heating the portion by exposing the portion [of the sintering material] to a temperature higher than the first value and lower than the second value; fastening [[another of]] the electronic component and the substrate to the portion so that the portion is interposed between the electronic component and the substrate; and pressing the portion while hot so as to cause the portion [of the sintering material] to creep,” as recited in claim 13 respectively.
Claims 2-12 and 15-20 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure FRUEH et al. (DE 102012207652 A1) discloses providing a first sintering paste (1) on semiconductor material (10) and heating the first sintering paste (1) at temperature between 200 C to 600 C while pressurizing the first sintering paste using pressure tool (30) and applying a second sintering paste (2) on the first sintering paste and placing a semiconductor device on the second sintering paste and bonding the substrate and the semiconductor device using heat and pressure using the first and second sintering paste layers. However, FRUEH et al. do not disclose the aforementioned allowable limitations of claims 1, 13 and 14.
BOEWER et al. (DE 102013216633 A1) also disclose similar inventive subject matter. However, BOEWER et al. do not disclose the aforementioned allowable limitations of claims 1, 13 and 14.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
March 15, 2026