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 1/22/2024, 1/8/2025, 5/14/2025, 7/11/2025 and 3/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lῦdeke et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0047697 A1).
[Re claim 1] Lῦdeke discloses the method for producing a solder contact surface on a chip (10), the chip (10) comprising a non-conductive substrate layer (12) and at least one conductor path (14) disposed on the substrate layer (12), the solder contact surface (28) being at least partially formed on the conductor path (12), the method comprising the following steps: a. applying a sinter paste (29) to a contact location (28) at least partially located on the conductor path (14), the sinter paste (29) comprising particles of at least one soft- solderable and conductive material and at least one solvent; and b. evaporating the solvent (see figure 1-2 and paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
[Re claim 4] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein the evaporation of the solvent in step b. is carried out at least partially by means of sintering, in particular by means of laser sintering via a laser (see paragraph [0030]).
[Re claim 6] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein the evaporation of the solvent in step b. is carried out at least partially by means of contact heating (see paragraph [0012]-[0015]).
[Re claim 7] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein the chip (10) in step a. and/or in step b. is held by means of a clamping element (see paragraph [0013]).
[Re claim 8] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein pressure is applied on the sinter paste by means of a pressure apparatus before or during the evaporation of the solvent in step b (see paragraph [0015]).
[Re claim 9] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein the material of the particles comprised in the sinter paste (29) applied in step a. is gold, silver, copper and/or a compound having a gold content, a silver content and/or a copper content (see paragraph [0029]).
[Re claim 11] Lῦdeke discloses the chip (10), comprising a non-conductive substrate layer (12), at least one conductor path (14) and at least one solder contact surface (28) disposed at least partially on the conductor path (14), obtained via the method according to the claims 1 (see figure 1-2 and paragraph [0029]-[0030]). The limitation "obtained via the method according to the claims 1" are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the method claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method production. Therefore, the limitation "obtained via the method according to the claims 1" do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2113 (I).
[Re claim 13] Lῦdeke discloses the chip wherein the solder contact surface (28) is made of gold, silver, copper and/or a compound having a gold content, a silver content and/or a copper content or comprises gold, silver, copper and/or a compound having a gold content, a silver content and/or a copper content (see paragraph [0018]-[0020]).
[Re claim 14] Lῦdeke discloses the chip wherein the conductor path (14) comprises aluminum (see paragraph [0020]).
[Re claim 15] Lῦdeke discloses the chip wherein a solder bump (29) is disposed, in particular soldered, on the solder contact surface (28) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0029]).
[Re claim 16] Lῦdeke discloses a use of a solder contact surface (28) in a soft- soldering method, the solder contact surface (28) being produced by the method according to the claims 1 (see figure 1-2 and paragraph [0029]-[0030]). The limitation "a solder contact surface in a soft- soldering method, the solder contact surface being produced by the method according to the claims 1" are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the method claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method production. Therefore, the limitation " a solder contact surface in a soft- soldering method, the solder contact surface being produced by the method according to the claims 1" do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2113 (I).
[Re claim 17] Lῦdeke discloses the use of the solder contact surface wherein the soft-soldering is part of a flip-chip method. The limitation "the soft-soldering is part of a flip-chip method" are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the method claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method production. Therefore, the limitation "the soft-soldering is part of a flip-chip method" do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2113 (I).
[Re claim 19] Lῦdeke discloses the method wherein the evaporation of the solvent in step b. is carried out by means of contact heating of the substrate layer via placement on a heating element (see paragraph [0012]).
[Re claim 20] Lῦdeke discloses the chip wherein the solder bump (29) is soldered on the solder contact surface (28) (see figure 1-2 and paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
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) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lῦdeke et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0047697 A1) in view of LI et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0142140 A1).
[Re claim 2] Lῦdeke discloses the method as claimed and rejected as claim 1, but Lῦdeke does not discloses the method wherein the sinter paste in step a. is carried out by means of selective dispensation via a dispenser. LI discloses the method wherein the sinter paste is carried out by a dispenser (see paragraph [0019]). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the effective filing date of the instant application to the sinter paste using a dispenser in the method of Lῦdeke in order to control the amount of the sinter paste disposed on the solder contact surface.
[Re claim 3] LI also discloses the method wherein the selective dispensation in step a. is carried out by means of an aerosol jet application (see paragraph [0019]).
[Re claim 5] LI also discloses the method wherein the evaporation of the solvent in step b. is carried out at least partially in a furnace (see paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lῦdeke et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0047697 A1).
[Re claim 10] Lῦdeke fails to disclose the selection of “the particle size of the particles comprised in the sinter paste applied in step a. is less than 100 nm”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 12] Lῦdeke fails to disclose the selection of “the solder contact surface has a width and/or a length of at least 5 µm and/or maximally 20 µm”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 18] Lῦdeke fails to disclose the selection of “the evaporation of the solvent in step b. is carried out at a temperature ranging from 60 °C to 250 °C”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1982. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (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 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.
/KYOUNG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights