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 response to an Office action mailed on 04/08/2026 (“04/08/2026 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claim 1, canceled claim 2 and added new claims 55-56 in a reply filed on 07/07/2026 (“07/07/2026 Reply”).
Claims 9, 19, 21, 23-30 and 32-54 are canceled.
Claim 31 is withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20, 22 and 55-56 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 04/08/2026.
On pages 7-10 in the 07/07/2026 Reply, the Applicant argues that the prior-art Bergmann fails to disclose a general condition for the claimed cobalt concentration and it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range of cobalt by routine experiment, because Bergmann fails to disclose any baseline concentration of cobalt, in which Bergmann fails to provide a specific example of an Au-Sn-Co configuration, nor any cobalt range, Bergmann provides no guidance direction a person of ordinary skill in the art to select cobalt specifically from the group of possible additives to combine with gold and tin, and Bergmann discloses embodiments comprising gold and tin mixed with nickel, not cobalt in paragraphs 121-122. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bergmann in paragraph 119 discloses the die attach layer 180’ includes ratios of AuSn (gold-tin), NiSn (nickel-tin) and/or other eutectic or non-eutectic mixtures of Au, Ni, Sn, Sb, As, Ta, Co, Mn and/or other 3d, 4d, 5d, or f block transition metals. That is, other than the embodiment comprising gold, tin and nickel as disclosed in ¶ 121-122, Bergmann also discloses a combination of materials for the die attach layer 180’ which includes AuSn (gold-tin) and Co (i.e., cobalt). Since Bergmann has disclosed cobalt can be mixed with AuSn for the die attach layer, cobalt must have a certain ratio/concentration in such mixture, which is the “general condition.” Furthermore, unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.5% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, the general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim obvious.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12-15, 17-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over US 2016/0149104 A1 to Bergmann et al. (“Bergmann”).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Bergmann in Figs. 1-2A teaches a semiconductor device package 200 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, LED component 200), comprising:
a submount 220/230 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, a collective of metal anode pad 220 and metal cathode pad 230); and
a semiconductor die 100 (Figs. 1-2A & ¶ 61, LED die 100) comprising a wide bandgap semiconductor 110, 120 (Figs. 1-2A, ¶ 53 & ¶ 55, LED die 100 includes a Group III-nitride based ep region 110 and a transparent substrate 120 includes silicon carbide, and the Group III-nitride material and silicon carbide are wide bandgap semiconductors as the Applicant purported in paragraph 21 in the specification of the present application); and
a die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119, die attach layer 180’) between the submount 220/230 and the semiconductor die 100;
wherein the die-attach layer 180’ comprises gold (Au), tin (Sn), and cobalt (Co) (¶ 119, die attach layer 180’ includes an eutectic mixtures of Au, Sn and Co).
However, Bergmann does not disclose a concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.5% by weight.
However, Bergmann teaches a general condition in which there is a concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Bergmann teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.5% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Bergmann does not disclose a concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.25% by weight.
However, Bergmann teaches a general condition in which there is a concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Bergmann teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of cobalt in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.25% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim 3 obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the die-attach layer 180’ comprises a eutectic alloy (¶ 62 & ¶ 119; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above).
Regarding claim 5, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the semiconductor device package 200 comprises a protective layer 250 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 68, encapsulant 250) on the die-attach layer 180’.
Regarding claim 7, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the die-attach layer 180’ further comprises nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), or aluminum (Al) (¶ 119).
Regarding claim 8, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the semiconductor device package 200 comprises an adhesion layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 69, die attach layer 180’ is used to keep the LED die 100 stay attached (i.e., adhere) to the lead frame 210).
Regarding claim 12, Bergmann does not disclose a concentration of tin (Sn) in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 10% by weight to about 30% by weight.
However, Bergmann teaches a general condition in which there is a concentration of tin (Sn) in the die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Bergmann teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of tin (Sn) in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 10% by weight to about 30% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim 12 obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Bergmann does not disclose a concentration of gold (Au) in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 65% by weight to about 85% by weight.
However, Bergmann teaches a general condition in which there is a concentration of gold (Au) in the die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Bergmann teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of gold (Au) in the die-attach layer is in a range of about 65% by weight to about 85% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim 13 obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the die-attach layer 180’ is lead (Pb) free (¶ 67, die attach layer 180’ comprises a lead-free solder; ¶ 119, lead is not listed as a material used for the die attach layer 180’ i.e., free of lead).
Regarding claim 15, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the submount 220/230 comprises copper (Cu) (¶ 63, metal anode pad 220 and metal cathode pad 230 are parts of metal lead frame structure that comprises copper).
Regarding claim 17, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the submount 220/230 comprises a lead frame 210 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, lead frame 210 includes the pads 220 and 230).
Regarding claim 18, Bergmann in Fig. 2A further teaches the wide bandgap semiconductor 110, 120 comprises silicon carbide or a Group III nitride (¶ 53 & ¶ 55; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above).
Regarding claim 20, Bergmann in Figs. 2A and 23-24 further teaches the semiconductor device package 200 is a discrete power semiconductor package 200 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, the LED component 200 includes the LED die 100 is a discrete power semiconductor package, as the LED die 100 of the component 200 is a power device (i.e., diode) as the Applicant purported in paragraph 62 in the specification of the present application, and Figs. 23-24 & ¶ 129-¶ 132 disclose the LED components are discrete semiconductor packages).
Regarding independent claim 22, Bergmann in Figs. 1-2A teaches an attach material 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119, die attach layer 180’) for attaching a wide bandgap semiconductor device 100 (Figs. 1-2A & ¶ 61, LED die 100; ¶ 53 & ¶ 55, LED die 100 includes a Group III-nitride based ep region 110 and a transparent substrate 120 includes silicon carbide, and the Group III-nitride material and silicon carbide are wide bandgap semiconductors as the Applicant purported in paragraph 21 in the specification of the present application) to a submount 220/230 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, a collective of metal anode pad 220 and metal cathode pad 230), the attach material 180’ comprising a eutectic alloy 180’ (¶ 119, die attach layer 180’ includes an eutectic mixtures 180’ of Au, Sn and Co), the eutectic alloy comprising gold (Au), tin (Sn), and cobalt (Co) (¶ 119).
However, Bergmann does not disclose a concentration of cobalt in the eutectic alloy is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.5% by weight.
However, Bergmann teaches a general condition in which there is a concentration of cobalt in the eutectic alloy 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Bergmann teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the concentration of cobalt in the eutectic alloy is in a range of about 0.01% by weight to about 0.5% by weight produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Bergmann renders claim 22 obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann in view of US 2011/0089556 A1 to Lee at al. (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 16, Bergmann does not explicitly disclose the submount comprises silver-plated copper (Cu).
Bergmann further discloses the submount 220/230 of a lead frame 210 (¶ 61) comprises copper (¶ 63).
Lee recognizes a need for enhancing the adhesion of copper lead frame to other metal (¶ 4 & ¶ 29). Lee satisfies the need by providing a submount (¶ 4 & ¶ 29, lead frame formed from copper) comprising silver-plated copper (Cu) (¶ 4 & ¶ 29).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copper submount taught by Bergmann with the silver-plated copper taught by Lee, so as to enhance the adhesion of copper lead frame to other metal (Lee: ¶ 4 & ¶ 29).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 6 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 6, wherein the protective layer comprises gold.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 10, further comprising a diffusion barrier layer.
Claim 11 would be allowable, because claim 11 depends from the allowable claim 10.
Claims 55-56 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 55, Bergmann in Figs. 1-2A teaches a semiconductor device package 200 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, LED component 200), comprising:
a submount 220/230 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, a collective of metal anode pad 220 and metal cathode pad 230);
a semiconductor die 100 (Figs. 1-2A & ¶ 61, LED die 100) comprising a wide bandgap semiconductor 110, 120 (Figs. 1-2A, ¶ 53 & ¶ 55, LED die 100 includes a Group III-nitride based ep region 110 and a transparent substrate 120 includes silicon carbide, and the Group III-nitride material and silicon carbide are wide bandgap semiconductors as the Applicant purported in paragraph 21 in the specification of the present application);
a die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119, die attach layer 180’) between the submount 220/230 and the semiconductor die 100; and
a protective layer 250 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 68, encapsulant 250) on the die-attach layer 180’, wherein the die-attach layer 180’ comprises gold (Au), tin (Sn), and cobalt (Co) (¶ 119, die attach layer 180’ includes an eutectic mixtures of Au, Sn and Co).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 55, the protective layer comprises gold.
Therefore, independent claim 55 is allowed.
Regarding independent claim 56, Bergmann in Figs. 1-2A teaches a semiconductor device package 200 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, LED component 200), comprising:
a submount 220/230 (Fig. 2A & ¶ 61, a collective of metal anode pad 220 and metal cathode pad 230);
a semiconductor die 100 (Figs. 1-2A & ¶ 61, LED die 100) comprising a wide bandgap semiconductor 110, 120 (Figs. 1-2A, ¶ 53 & ¶ 55, LED die 100 includes a Group III-nitride based ep region 110 and a transparent substrate 120 includes silicon carbide, and the Group III-nitride material and silicon carbide are wide bandgap semiconductors as the Applicant purported in paragraph 21 in the specification of the present application);
a die-attach layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119, die attach layer 180’) between the submount 220/230 and the semiconductor die 100;
an adhesion layer 180’ (Fig. 2A, ¶ 62 & ¶ 119, die attach layer 180’); and
wherein the die-attach layer 180’ comprises gold (Au), tin (Sn), and cobalt (Co) (¶ 119, die attach layer 180’ includes an eutectic mixtures of Au, Sn and Co).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 55, a diffusion barrier layer.
Therefore, independent claim 56 is allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights