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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023 was filed and is in compliance with provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in figure 3, the feature recited in claim 2, “wherein the adhesive is disposed so that a thickness thereof at the side surface of the wiring substrate in a thickness direction of the wiring substrate is half or more of a thickness of the wiring substrate”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is suggested the thickness, the thickness direction, and the thickness relationship of half or more should be clearly labeled. No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, in figures 1 and 3, the feature recited in claim 10, “wherein a meniscus at the side surface formed by the adhesive is higher than a meniscus at an edge portion of the semiconductor chip formed by the another adhesive” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Only one “meniscus” is shown in feature 14. No “meniscus” is shown in feature 12. Also see 112 rejections for the term “meniscus”. No new matter should be entered.
Further, in figure 3, the feature recited in claim 4, “an angle of 45 degrees or less…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The angle is not labeled. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the reference number for the feature shown between 14 and 12 is not labeled in Figure 2. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 4-6 (“comparative example” in the specification page 5, [0034]) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” is missing before “a thermal expansion coefficient.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 are 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.
In Claim 2, lines 1-3 the limitation, “wherein the adhesive is disposed so that a thickness thereof at the side surface of the wiring substrate in a thickness direction of the wiring substrate is half or more of a thickness of the wiring substrate” is indefinite. Is applicant referring to ½ or more of the thickness of the wiring substrate in the vertical direction or the horizontal direction. What does "in a thickness direction" mean? The phrase is not defined in the specification and the drawings do not explicitly show or label this feature. No new matter should be entered. Correction is requested.
In claim 10, lines 1-2, the limitation “a meniscus” is indefinite, as the term meniscus is usually used for a liquid, not a solidified adhesive. It is suggested to use “concave surface” or a similar language instead. No new matter should be entered. Correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma (US 2021/0257332 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 2014/0001648 Al).
Regarding claim 1, Homma teaches a semiconductor device ([0005]; Fig. 1A) comprising: a wiring substrate (50) having a first main surface (top of 50) and a second main surface (bottom of 50), including an opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) formed to penetrate from the first main surface (top of 50) to the second main surface (bottom of 50), and configured to include an insulating material (50 is described as including an insulating material in [0034]);
a metal substrate (10) fixed to the wiring substrate (50) to cover the opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) from the second main surface side (bottom of 50);
a semiconductor chip (30) fixed inside the opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) on a main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10) on the wiring substrate side (bottom of 50);
a resin (90) disposed to cover the semiconductor chip (30) from above the first main surface (top of 50) of the wiring substrate to the inside of the opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) on the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10), and formed of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient different from that of the wiring substrate (50) (the resin 90 is formed of an epoxy-based material with a Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of 45-65 (10-6 m/(m K)), which is different from the wiring substrate made of glass epoxy material with Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 36 (10-6 m/(m K) note both CTE values provided are for a material property as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox, (2019). Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion. [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html [26/01/2026]; and
an adhesive (35) disposed between a side surface (7a) defining the opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) of the wiring substrate (50) and the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10), and the resin (90), wherein
the adhesive (35) is disposed on the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10) so that a thickness gradually increases from a center side of the opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) to the side surface of the wiring substrate (50).
Homma does not teach the adhesive containing a metal paste.
However, Nakamura does teach the adhesive containing a metal paste (61); [0039].
Homma and Nakamura are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are directed to semiconductor devices with similar packaging device configurations using adhesives and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Homma in view of Nakamura because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Homma to include the adhesive containing a metal paste, as taught by Nakamura, since the performance of a semiconductor device can generally be enhanced by including metallic particles in the bonding adhesive, providing a strong mechanical bond which assures the integrity of the thermal conductivity and electrical properties of the die. (Nakamura; Ag paste; [0039])
PNG
media_image1.png
462
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1A: a cross-sectional view showing a semiconductor device according to a first embodiment. [0050], Homma.
Regarding claim 2, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above. In addition, Homma (Fig 1A) discloses wherein the adhesive (35) is disposed so that a thickness thereof at the side surface of the wiring substrate in a thickness direction of the wiring substrate (50) is half or more of a thickness of the wiring substrate (50) (Homma’s Fig. 1A, appears to show the thickness in the north-south direction, perpendicular to the substrate, at the side surface of the wiring substrate, is half or more of the height of the wiring substrate, taking into consideration and comparison what is shown and described in Applicant’s disclosure for this feature and noting the specification does not disclose criticality when describing this feature).
Although the drawings are not to scale, they may be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art when interpreted in view of the specification (MPEP 2125(II), In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In this case for the adhesive, the height, thickness and direction of thickness may be optimized for desired device performance.
Regarding claim 4, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above. In addition, Homma (Fig 1A) discloses wherein a line of the adhesive (35) connecting an end point on the side surface of the wiring substrate (50) on the first main surface side (top of 50) and an end point on the main surface of the metal substrate (10) on a center side of opening (unlabeled through-hole surrounding resin 35 and chip 30) forms an angle of 45 degrees or less with respect to the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10) (See annotated drawing, Fig 1A below; Homma’s Fig. 1A, appears to show the 45-degree angle taking into consideration and comparison what is shown and described in Applicant’s disclosure for this feature and noting the specification does not disclose criticality when describing this feature).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle ≤ 450)]
PNG
media_image2.png
397
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 1A (Annotated): a cross-sectional view showing a semiconductor device according to a first embodiment. [0050], Homma.
Although the drawings are not to scale, they may be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art when interpreted in view of the specification (MPEP 2125(II), In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In this case the angle may be optimized for desired device performance.
Regarding claim 5, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above. In addition, Homma discloses wherein a metal film (14) formed of a metal material containing any one of gold, silver, copper, iron, zinc, and tin is provided on the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10); (Homma) [ 0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above. In addition, Homma (annotated Fig 1A below) discloses further comprising another adhesive (annotated 35b) different from the adhesive (annotated 35a) inside the opening on the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10) on the wiring substrate side (50), wherein
the adhesive (annotated 35a) and another adhesive (annotated 35b) are spaced apart on the main surface of the metal substrate (top of 10).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (35a)][AltContent: textbox (35b)]
PNG
media_image3.png
414
929
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 1A (Annotated): a cross-sectional view showing a semiconductor device according to a first embodiment. [0050], Homma.
Homma does not teach the adhesive containing a metal paste.
However, Nakamura does teach the adhesive containing a metal paste (61; [0039]).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
935
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig 2: a cross-sectional view illustrating a semiconductor device in the first embodiment showing a semiconductor device according to a first embodiment; [0014]; Nakamura.
Homma and Nakamura are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are directed to semiconductor devices with similar packaging configurations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Homma in view of Nakamura because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Homma to include the adhesive containing a metal paste, as taught by Nakamura, since the performance of a semiconductor device can generally be enhanced by including metallic particles in the bonding adhesive, it provides a strong mechanical bond that assures the integrity of the thermal conductivity and electrical properties of the die (Nakamura; Ag paste; [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 6 as explained above. In addition, Homma discloses wherein the adhesive (annotated 35a) and the another adhesive (annotated 35b) is formed of the same material (See Nakamura for the addition of metal paste into the adhesives made from the same material, Ag paste; [0039] with same motivation as in claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 6 as explained above.
Homma does not disclose wherein the adhesive (annotated 35a) and the another adhesive (annotated 35b) includes a metal paste containing any one of gold, silver, copper, nickel, and aluminum.
However, Nakamura does teach the adhesive containing a metal paste containing any one of gold, silver, copper, nickel, and aluminum; (Ag; [0039]).
Homma and Nakamura are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are directed to semiconductor devices with similar packaging configurations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Homma in view of Nakamura because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Homma to include the adhesive containing a metal paste, as taught by Nakamura Since the performance of a semiconductor device can generally be enhanced by including metallic particles in the bonding adhesive, which provides a strong mechanical bond, assuring the integrity of the thermal conductivity and electrical properties of the die (Nakamura; Ag paste; [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above. In addition, Homma Figures 1A and 1B, disclose wherein the wiring substrate (50) contains any one of an epoxy-based material, a fluorine-based material, a polyphenylene oxide-based material, and a phenol-based material, and the resin contains either an epoxy-based material or a silicon-based material (Homma; [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 6 as explained above. In addition, Homma discloses wherein a meniscus at the side surface formed by the adhesive (annotated 35a) is higher than a meniscus at an edge portion of the semiconductor chip formed by the another adhesive (annotated 35b) (Homma’s Fig. 1A appears to show the shape of the top surface of the adhesive (annotated 35a) is concave and the top of the surface of the another adhesive (annotated 35b) is convex), taking into consideration and comparison what is shown and described in Applicant’s disclosure for this feature taking into consideration and comparison what is shown and described in Applicant’s disclosure for this feature and noting the specification does not disclose criticality when describing this feature).
Although the drawings are not to scale, they may be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art when interpreted in view of the specification (MPEP 2125(II), In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In this case the height and shape of the meniscus may be optimized for desired device performance.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma (US 2021/0257332 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 2014/0001648 Al) and further in view Engineering ToolBox, (2019). Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion. [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html [26/01/2026].
Regarding claim 3, Homma in view of Nakamura teaches the device of claim 1 as explained above.
However, Homma in view of Nakamura does not explicitly disclose wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the wiring substrate (50) is twice or more a thermal expansion coefficient of the resin (90).
Engineering Toolbox further teaches the thermal expansion coefficient of the wiring substrate (50) is twice or more a thermal expansion coefficient of the resin (90) since the resin (90) is formed of an epoxy-based material with a Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of 45-65 (10-6 m/(m K)) which is different from the wiring substrate made of glass epoxy material with Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 36(10-6 m/(m K); It is implied that both materials will have different thermal expansion coefficients, and the values from the table of Engineeringtoolbox.com (Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion) would apply whether the CTE relationship of the two materials is inversely or directly proportional). Relationship:
CTE wiring substrate > CTE Resin
2* (CTE wiring substrate) = CTE Resin
Homma, Nakamura and The Engineering Toolbox are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are directed to semiconductor devices with similar packaging configurations and include materials with varying coefficients of linear thermal expansion, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Homma in view of Nakamura, further in view of The Engineering Toolbox because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Homma in view of Nakamura to disclose the thermal expansion coefficient of the wiring substrate (50) is twice or more a thermal expansion coefficient of the resin (90) for the reasons provided in, and evidence provided in the Engineering Toolbox table.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). In this case the relationship between the CTE of the resin and the CTE of the wiring substrate may be optimized for desired device performance.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure. Bhatt et al. (US 6426565 B1) and Nakashiba et al. (US 2024/0006344 A1) are cited to teach an electronic package for the semiconductor device of the claimed invention, with a chip placed on a metal film on a substrate, relevant to claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATONYA R WALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5pm.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.\
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.
/L.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2811
/LYNNE A GURLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811