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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “CONNECTION PIN WITH A HIGH ASPECT RATIO FOR SEMICONDUCTOR CONNECTIONS”
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 10-11 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.
Claim 10 line 1 recited: “further comprising a diffusion layer on the exterior of said solder layer”. It is ambiguous that the diffusion layer is on the exterior of the solder layer, according to the drawing in figure 1b the diffusion layer is in between the metal pin and the solder layer but not outside of the solder layer. Further, clarification is required.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 and also is rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 8142240).
As per claim 1: Oh et al. discloses a connection pin 120 comprising: a columnar structure (as shown in figs. 3-4). However, Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter ranging from about 60 µm to about 500 µm, an aspect ratio (length to diameter) ranging from about 1 to about 10, and a horizontal surface and a vertical surface of said structure defining an angle ranging from about 87⁰ to about 93⁰.
On the other hand, Oh et al. mentioned the connection pin 120 with a diameter S (see fig. 4, wherein the diameter d of the flat part 112 may be varied with respect to the diameter S of the connection pin 120 of which diameter is set according to standards of electronic components. Therefore, the diameter d of the flat part 112 may have a diameter ratio of 1:1.1 to 1:4 with respect to the diameter of the connection pin 120). However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having a diameter ranging from about 60 µm to about 500 µm, an aspect ratio (length to diameter) ranging from about 1 to about 10, and a horizontal surface and a vertical surface of said structure defining an angle ranging from about 87⁰ to about 93⁰ can only deal with change in size because such modification still would not change the function of the connection pin after all but to further enhance a high connection stability and reliability of the connection pin within the device. Further, applicant have presented no explanation that these particular configurations of the connection pin as recited above are significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing the range of diameter, the ratio and the angle of the connection pin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connection pin of Oh et al. by having a diameter ranging from about 60 µm to about 500 µm, an aspect ratio (length to diameter) ranging from about 1 to about 10, and a horizontal surface and a vertical surface of said structure defining an angle ranging from about 87⁰ to about 93⁰ as taught by the instant invention to further enhance a high connection stability, reliability of the connection pin in the semiconductor connections as desire.
As per claims 2-5: Oh et al. discloses the connection pin 120 is comprised of a metal or an alloy (inherent for the connection pin is made out of metal or alloy since, it is soldered to the head part 110 for electrical conductivity purposes). However, Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection pin is comprised of a metal or an alloy, and said connection pin includes a metal pin having an electrical conductivity ranging from about 11% IACS to about 101% IACS; and wherein said metal pin has a melting point ranging from about 500°C to about 1000°C; and wherein metal pin has an edge R value ranging from about 3 µm to about 20 µm; and wherein connection pin has a surface roughness ranging from about RMS 0.5 µm to about RMS 1 µm.
On the other hand, Oh et al. mentioned the lead pins has a higher melting point as compared to the solder paste and other aspects from the prior art of record. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having these specifically ranging numbers of the metal pin as recited above can only deal with optimum range from the manufacture as desire, because such modification still would not change the function of the metal pin or the connection pin in the semiconductor connections after all, but to further enhance a high connection stability, reliability of the connection pin in the semiconductor connections. Since, 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connection pin of Oh et al. by having the connection pin is comprised of a metal or an alloy, and said connection pin includes a metal pin having an electrical conductivity ranging from about 11% IACS to about 101% IACS; and wherein said metal pin has a melting point ranging from about 500°C to about 1000°C; and wherein metal pin has an edge R value ranging from about 3 µm to about 20 µm; and wherein connection pin has a surface roughness ranging from about RMS 0.5 µm to about RMS 1 µm as taught by the instant invention to further enhance a high connection stability, reliability of the connection pin in the semiconductor connections and as the manufacture desire.
As per claims 6-8: Oh et al. discloses the connection pin 120, further comprising a solder layer on at least one region of the surface of the metal pin (as shown in fig. 4). However, Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the solder layer comprises tin; and further comprises silver, and wherein the content of the silver is ranging from about 1.5 weight% to about 4.0 weight%; and the solder layer has a thickness ranging from about 0.1 µm to about 10 µm.
On the other hand, Oh et al. mentioned solder paste 220, made of an alloy of lead, zinc, and silver, is melted in a liquid-phase form having viscosity by applying heat and is cured in a melted-state shape by a normal temperature cooling, wherein the objects to be bonded are bonded each other in a cured state. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that having the solder layer comprises tin, silver; and the content of silver is ranging from about 1.5 weight% to about 4.0 weight% and a thickness ranging from about 0.1 µm to about 10 µm can only deal with preferred material, because such modification still would not change the function of the metal pin but to further enhance a high conductivity, reliability and stability of the metal pin in the semiconductor connections. Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connection pin of Oh et al. by having the solder layer comprises tin; and further comprises silver, and wherein the content of the silver is ranging from about 1.5 weight% to about 4.0 weight%; and the solder layer has a thickness ranging from about 0.1 µm to about 10 µm as taught by the instant invention to further enhance a high conductivity, reliability and stability of the metal pin in the semiconductor connections.
Claim(s) 9 is as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 8142240) in view of Buresch (EP 1535730).
As per claim 9: Oh et al. discloses the connection pin 120. However, Oh et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the solder layer is plated on the exterior surface of the metal pin.
Buresch discloses an electrical connection pin is known as a solder connection of electrical lines, wherein in order to ensure solderability, it is proposed to electroplate an intermediate silver layer between the inner nickel barrier layer and the outer tin solder layer in order to provide protection against oxidation and to form strong electrical and mechanical connections between components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the connection pin of Oh et al. by having the solder layer is plated on the exterior surface of the metal pin as taught by Buresch in order to provide protection against oxidation and to form strong electrical and mechanical connections between components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0288. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831