Attorney Docket Number: OTI-032896-US-ORD
Filing Date: 7/06/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 7/12/2022 (JP2022-111825)
Inventor: Aizawa
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 12/09/2025.
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 12/04/2025, responding to the Office action mailed 12/09/2025, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, and 6-9. The applicant cancelled claims 2-3 and 5, and added claim 10. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the respective claim rejections
under nonstatutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 9/011/2025. Accordingly, the claim rejections of nonstatutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1, 4, and 6-10. New grounds of rejections are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 had been amended to recite “wherein the first intermetallic compound layer extends over an entire length of the bonding member in the thickness-wise direction at a central portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view, and wherein the second intermetallic compound layer is stacked on the first intermetallic compound layer at an outer edge portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view.” However, the disclosure as originally filed (see, e.g., Fig. 2) does not support the granulated deposits within the deposits simultaneously within the same embodiment as the intermetallic central-extension and outer-edge surrounding configuration. Therefore, the claimed arrangement of claim 8 wherein the intermetallic central-portion and second intermetallic surrounding extension feature also includes granulated deposits in the deposits of metal constitutes new matter.
The applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim, or demonstrate explicit support for the claimed subject matter in the original disclosure (e.g., by citing specific excerpts from related sections of Specification or related features in Drawings, as filed). A broad statement alleging support for the claimed subject matter, or relying on unrelated disclosure for support, will be considered non-persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu (US 20130087912 A1) in view of Hou (US 20200402950 A1)
teaches most aspects of the connection structural body.
However, Shimizu in view of Hou fails to disclose or suggest wherein the first intermetallic compound layer extends over an entire length of the bonding member in the thickness-wise direction at a central portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view, wherein the second intermetallic compound layer is stacked on the first intermetallic compound layer at an outer edge portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered
obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu (US 20130087912 A1) in view of Hou (US 20200402950 A1)
teaches most aspects of the semiconductor device.
However, Shimizu in view of Hou fails to disclose or suggest wherein the first intermetallic compound layer extends over an entire length of the bonding member in the thickness-wise direction at a central portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view, wherein the second intermetallic compound layer is stacked on the first intermetallic compound layer at an outer edge portion of the intermetallic compound layer in plan view.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered
obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu (US 20130087912 A1) in view of Hou (US 20200402950 A1)
teaches most aspects of the connection structural body.
However, Shimizu in view of Hou fails to disclose or suggest wherein the intermetallic compound layer includes: a first intermetallic compound layer extending over an entire length of the bonding member in a thickness-wise direction from the first connection terminal to the second connection terminal, and a second intermetallic compound layer that differs from the first intermetallic compound layer, wherein the second intermetallic compound layer is stacked on the first intermetallic compound layer in the thickness-wise direction of the bonding member and surrounds a portion of the first intermetallic compound layer.
Therefore, the above limitations in the entirety of the claim are neither anticipated nor rendered
obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment
of the issue fee, and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such
admissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@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 ttps://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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814