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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement has been made of the amendment received on 05/22/2026. Claims 1, 16, 18-21 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1. 5, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge et al (US5275328A) in view of Hsiao et al (20110186989 A1).
Re claim 1 Lodge teaches, a solder structure (7/11, fig 1) which comprises: a solder material (7 fig 1) [col 2, line 48]; and
a coating (11, fig 1) [col 2, line 44] which at least partially coats (top of 7, fig 1) the solder material (7, fig 1) and is configured for protecting the solder material against solder spreading (forming a barrier preventing molten solder) [col 2 line 6-7] and when establishing a solder connection (connection between 3 and 1) [col 2 lines 65-66] between the solder material (7) and a solderable structure (3, fig 1) [col 2, line 53].
Lodge does not explicitly teach the coating being at least partially disrupted when establishing the solder connection.
Lodge does teach "the oxide coating 11 breaks up when the layer 5 becomes molten when the heat conducted to the region 15 and molten solder material forms the metallurgical bond with 9 and region 15 of the layer 5. [col 2 lines 1-4]."
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lodge to include the coating being at least partially disrupted when establishing the solder connection as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge in the above manner thus forming good solder joints and enhance the connection between two components.
Lodge does not teach the coating coats at least sidewall of the solder material.
Hsiao teaches the coating (24, fig 3D)[0020] coats at least sidewall of the solder material (22d, fig 3D) [0029].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hsiao into the structure of Lodge to include the coating coats at least sidewall of the solder material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge based on the teaching of Hsiao in the above manner for the purpose of maintaining a more uniform standoff height in completed packages, and improved reliability of the semiconductor device [0021].
Re claim 5 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach solder structure according to claim 1, wherein the coating comprises an oxide layer (11, fig 1) [Lodge, col 2, line 44].
Re claim 19 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach, a method of manufacturing an electronic device, the method comprising: providing a solder structure (7/11) [col 3, line 3-4] according to claim 1 between a first functional body (3, fig 1) and a second functional body (1, fig 1) [col 1, line 12-14, col 2 lines 32-34];
establishing a solder connection (connection between 1 and 3) (by the solder material in a solder connection region (region 15) between the first functional body (1, fig 1) and the second functional body (3, fig 1); and
protecting the solder material (7, fig 1) [col 2 line 6-8] by the coating (11, fig 1) [col 2 lines 6-7] against solder spreading during establishing the solder connection. (forming a barrier preventing molten solder) [col 2 line 6-7].
Lodge does not explicitly says at least partially disrupting the coating in the solder
connection region.
Lodge does teach "the oxide coating 11 breaks up when the layer 5 becomes molten when the heat conducted to the region 15 and molten solder material forms the metallurgical bond with 9 and region 15 of the layer 5. [col 2 lines 1-4]."
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lodge to include at least partially disrupting the coating in the solder connection region as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge in the above manner thus forming good solder joints and enhance the connection between two components.
Re claim 20 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach the method according to claim 19, comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the method comprises establishing the solder connection by heating the solder material above its melting point which at least partially disrupts the coating in the solder connection region "the oxide coating 11 breaks up when the layer 5 becomes molten when the heat conducted to the region 15 and molten solder material forms the metallurgical bond with 9 and region 15 of the layer 5.[Lodge, col 2 lines 1-4];
wherein the method comprises establishing the solder connection (connection of 1 and 3, fig 1) by heating the solder material (7, fig 1) to a temperature in a range from 230°C to 270°C, in particular in a range from 240°C to 260°C, (at least 200 degrees. C. higher.) [col 3 line 44] which at least partially disrupts the coating (oxide layer 11 breaks in the region 15) in the solder connection region (region 15) [col 3 lines 1-3];
wherein the method comprises establishing the solder connection and at least partially disrupting the coating in the solder connection region by reflow soldering ("the oxide coating 11 breaks up when the layer 5 becomes molten when the heat conducted to the region 15 and molten solder material forms the metallurgical bond with 9 and region 15 of the layer 5. [Lodge, col 2 lines 1-4]).
Re claim 21 Lodge in view Hsiao teach the method according to claim 19, wherein providing the solder structure (108c, fig 3D) [Hsiao, 0030] comprises coating the solder material (22d, fig 3C-3D) [Hsiao, 0029] with the coating (24, fig 3C) [0029] prior to providing the solder structure (108c, fig 3D) [Hsiao, 0030] between the first functional body (100, fig 3D) [Hsiao, 0021] and the second functional body (10, fig 3D) [Hsiao, 0025].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Hsiao as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chiang et al (US 20200051898 A1).
Re claim 2 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach the solder structure according to claim 1,
Lodge do not teach the coating comprises an adhesion promoter.
Chiang teaches, the coating (30, fig )comprises an adhesion promoter [0035].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Chiang into the structure of Lodge and Hsiao to include the coating comprises an adhesion promoter as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Hsiao based on the teaching of Chiang to improve the electrical connection between lead frame and the material of the adhesive or solder [0035].
Re claim 3 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach the solder structure according to claim 1,
Lodge and Hsiao do not teach the coating comprises an inorganic and/or a morphological adhesion promoter.
Chiang does teach the coating (30, fig 3) comprises an inorganic and/or a morphological adhesion promoter (electrically conductive material). [0037].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Chiang into the structure of Lodge and to include the coating comprises an inorganic and/or a morphological adhesion promoter as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge based on the teaching of Chiang to improve the electrical connection between lead frame and the material of the adhesive or solder [0035].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Hsiao and Chiang as applied to claims 1 and 2 further in view of Silvano et al (US 20190223298 A1).
Re claim 4 Lodge in view of Hsiao Chiang teaches the solder structure according to claim 2,
Lodge, Hsiao and Chiang do not tach the adhesion promoter comprises a porous material Silvano traches the adhesion promoter comprises a porous material (108, fig 11) [ [0023, 0064, 0068].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Silvano into the structure of Lodge, Hsiao and Chiang to include the adhesion promoter comprises a porous material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Silvano based on the teaching of Lodge, Hsiao and Chiang in the above manner to improve thermal dissipation in the plane direction [0089].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Hsiao as applied claim 1, further in view of Daniels et al (US 20140134799A1).
Re claim 6 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach, the solder structure according to claim 5, wherein the oxide layer (11, fig 1) comprises at least one of the group consisting of a metal oxide (col 2, line 44) ,
Lodge and Hsiao do not teach the metal oxide in particular copper oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide chromium oxide, zinc oxide vanadium oxide, zinc oxide molybdenum oxide, zinc oxide manganese oxide, zinc
Daniels teaches the metal oxide in particular copper oxide (oxide coating, copper oxide) [0005].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Daniels into the structure of Lodge and Hsiao to include the metal oxide in particular copper oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide chromium oxide, zinc oxide vanadium oxide, zinc oxide molybdenum oxide, zinc oxide manganese oxide, zinc as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Hsiao based on the teaching of Daniels in the above manner for the purpose of achieving good electrical connection.
Furthermore, the selection of a known material is based on art recognized suitability for an intended purpose. Se In re Le shin, 277F.2d197, USPQ (CCPA 1960) See MPEP 2144.07)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Hsiao in view of Maeno et al (US20170232562A1).
Re claim 7 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach, the solder structure according to claim 1,
Lodge and Hsiao do not teach the solder material has a thickness in a range from 5 µm to 100 µm, in particular in a range from 10 µm to 50 µm.
Maeno does teach the solder material (25, fig 1) has a thickness in a range from 5 µm to 100 µm (43), in particular in a range from 10 µm to 50 µm.( around 40 µm,) [0068].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Maeno into the structure of Lodge and Hsiao to include the solder material has a thickness in a range from 5 µm to 100 µm (43), in particular in a range from 10 µm to 50 µm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Hsiao based on the teaching of Maeno in the above manner for the purpose of improving the boding strength.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then 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.
Re claim 8 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach, the solder structure according to claim 1,
Lodge does not teach the coating has a thickness in a range from 10 nm to 500 nm.
Maeno does teach the coating (14b, fig 1) [0046] has a thickness in a range from 10 nm to 500 nm (0.53 micron) [0046].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Maeno into the structure of Lodge to include the coating has a thickness in a range from 10 nm to 500 nm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge based on the teaching of Maeno in the above manner for the purpose of improving the boding strength.
Furthermore, it has been held that where then 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.
Re claim 9 Lodge in view of Hsiao teach the solder structure according to claim 1, wherein the solder material (7, fig 1) comprises tin (tin/lead) [col 4, lines 66]
Lodge and Hsiao do not teach a tin alloy, in particular at least one of the group consisting of AgSn,AuSn NiSn, CuSn, AgCuSn, and InSn.
Maeno teaches the solder material consisting CuSn (25, fig 1) [0044].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Maeno into the structure of Lodge and Hsiao to include a tin alloy, in particular at least one of the group consisting of AgSn, AuSn NiSn, CuSn, AgCuSn, and InSn as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Hsiao based on the teaching of Maeno in the above manner for the purpose so good bonding is achieved [0079].
Furthermore, the selection of a known material is based on art recognized suitability for an intended purpose. Se In reLeshin, 277F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA (See 2144.07).
Claims 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lodge et al (US5275328A) in view of Chan et al (US 20070037319A).
Re claim 10 Lodge teaches an electronic device (fig 1), comprising:
a first functional body (component one a housing 1, fig 1) [col 2, lines 33-34]
a second functional body (component , a lid) [col2 lines 33-34]; and
a solder solder structure (7/11, fig 1) [col 2lines 44, 48] comprising solder material (7, fig 1) [col 2, line 48] which establishes a solder connection in a solder connection region (region 15) [col 3 lines 6-7] between the first functional body (1, fig 1) and the second functional body (3, fig 1);
wherein a coating (11, fig 1) of the solder structure partially coats the solder material (top of 7, fig 1) apart from the solder connection region (region 15) [col 3 line 4].
and wherein the coating (11, fig 1) is configured for protecting the solder material (25) against solder spreading (forming a barrier preventing molten solder) [col 2 line 6-7].
Lodge does not teach the coating of the solder structure coats at least sidewalls of the solder material.
Chan teaches the coating of the solder structure ((13, fig 3) [0041] coats at least sidewalls of the solder material (16, fig 3) [0041].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Chan into the structure of Lodge to include the coating of the solder structure coats at least sidewalls of the solder material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge based on the teaching of Chan on the above manner for the purpose of preventing solder material from laterally spreading [0007].
Re claim 16 Lodge in view of Chan teach the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the electronic device (fig 1) is free of a solder resist (no solder mask, see fig 1) [Lodge col 2 line 53].
Re claim 18 Lodge in view of Chan teach, the electronic device according to claim 10, comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the solder structure (7/11, fig 1) forms part of one or both of the first functional body (3, fig 1) and the second functional body (1,fig 1) [Lodge, col 2 line 54];
configured as a semiconductor power package;
comprising an encapsulant at least partially encapsulating the first functional body, the second functional body, and the solder structure.
Claims 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Chan as applied to claim 10 further in view of Maeno et al (US20170232562A1).
Re claim 11 Lodge in view of Chan teach the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein one of the first functional body (1 housing, fig 1) [col 2, lines 31-36] and the second functional body is a carrier.
Lodge and Chan do not teach one of the first functional body and the second functional body is an electronic component.
Maeno teaches one of the first functional body (MOS chip 13, fig 1) and the second
functional body is an electronic component (wiring board 11, fig 1) [0043].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Maeno into the structure of Lodge and Chan to include one of the first functional body and the second functional body is an electronic component as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge based on the teaching of Maeno in the above manner for the purpose of improving the electrical connection between the components.
Re claim 13 Lodge in view of Chan and Maeno teach the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the carrier (11, fig1) is a laminate substrate or a lead frame structure [ Maeno, 0044].
Re claim 14 Lodge in view of Chan teach the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the carrier (11) comprises a metal structure (12) , in particular a metal structure with a metallic surface coating. (15) [Maeno,0046].
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge modified by Chan in view of Pielmeier et al (US 20200291538A1).
Re claim 12 Lodge in view of Chan teaches, the electronic device according to claim 10,
Lodge teaches the other one of the first functional body (1, fig 1) [Col 2 lines 31-36] and the second functional body is a carrier.
Lodge and Chan do not teach one of the first functional body and the second functional body is a clip.
Pielmeier does teach one of the first functional body and the second functional body (302, fig 3) [0040] is a clip (metal clip ) [0040].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Pielmeier into the structure of Lodge and Chan to include one of the first functional body and the second functional body is a clip as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Chan based on the teaching of Pielmeier in the above manner for the purpose so improving electrical connection.
Re claim 15 Lodge in view of Chan teaches the electronic device according to claim 10,
Lodge teaches one of the first functional body (1, fig1) [col 2 lines 31-34] and the second functional body is an electronic component.
Lodge and Chan do not teach the other one of the first functional body and the second functional body is a clip.
the other one of the first functional body and the second functional body is a clip (302, fig 3) [0040] is a clip (metal clip ) [0040].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Pielmeier into the structure of Lodge and Chan to include the other one of the first functional body and the second functional body is a clip as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lodge and Chan based on the teaching of Pielmeier in the above manner for the purpose so improving electrical connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant submits, “coating 13 of Chan does not contact sidewall of the solder bumps which are attached to the die contact pads 4” page 6.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees,
In the context of reference Chan fig 3 the deposition of coating 13 on the front side 19 of the wafer 15. The coating 13 has a thickness so that the lower portion of the solder material which is attached to the wafer. Viewing from the top view the coating is on the sidewall of the solder material. Considering the shape of solder material 16 the upper portion of 16 is rounded and is laterally larger than the lower portion which has an essentially rod shape. As shown in fig 3 the peripheral region at the bottom of the solder bump constitutes part of the sidewall. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the sidewall of a solder bump extends to the lowermost peripheral region of the bump. Hence, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, meets the claimed invention. Clarification and details are included in the above rejection.
Applicant submits “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Chan’s layer 13 on the solder preform 7 in Lodge , because doing so would undermine the intended function of both Lodge and Chan”. Page 7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees,
Chan teaches in para 0042 the coating layer 13 prevents the solder bump material from spreading laterally outwards from the die contact pad 4into the adjacent area. The rejection does not rely on bodily incorporating all aspects of Chan into Lodge, nor does it require changing the principle of operation either reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that apply such a known coating technique to the solder preform of Lodge would have predictably provided similar benefits while maintaining the solder connection function taught by Lodge. Hence, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, meets the claimed invention. Clarification and details are included in the above rejection.
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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/9/26
Prosecution Insights