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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 May 2024 and 25 February 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 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.
In regards to independent claim 1, this claim sets forth the phrase “a maximum size among sizes of cavities observed in an observation image of a surface of the sinter bonding layer at a magnification of 100 times is 100 µm or less” in the third and fourth lines of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear the size of the observation area. The size of an observation area is not a constant based on the amount of magnification. The observation area is dependent upon the apparatus utilized for the magnification and the parameters utilized in the magnification process. Therefore, a magnification area could be quite vast, encompassing the entirety of a sheet or quite small having a very small are.
Additionally, it is not clear what the relationship is between the magnification and the 100 µm or less. It is not clear if the cavities are measured in the observation image itself or if the measurement is merely that the actual cavities in the sinter bonding sheet are 100 µm or less. If it is that the sinter bonding sheet does not have cavities of 100 µm or less it is not clear why the magnification is necessary. If it is that within the image created by magnifying 100 times, then there are issues as to the size of the image thereby creating a wide range of sizes from the same measurement, e.g. an enlarged image would have greater sizes than a smaller sized image.
Further regarding this phrase in the claim, it is not clear how the maximum size among sizes of cavities is determined or measured. For example, various methods of measuring the size of cavities may be utilized, including diameter, equivalent-circle-diameter, maximum dimension, and depth. These methods of measurement would yield different results and therefore a product that would meet this limitation under one such measurement may not meet this limitation under another type of measurement.
For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting this phrase to mean the size of the cavities within the actual image and not within the sheet. Any observation area size can be utilized. The maximum dimension is utilized.
As to claims 2-11, these claims depend from independent claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. According, claims 2-11 are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent claim 1.
As to claim 2, this claim sets forth the limitation of “an area proportion of the cavities within the observation image with an area of at least 9 mm2 is 5.0% or less” in the first and second lines of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined. It is not clear how this area proportion is calculated. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, sets forth a maximum size of 100 µm or less. Claim 2 sets forth an area of at least 9 mm2.Therefore, it is not clear what reference frame or measurement basis is utilized for these measurements. If the area is taken from the actual image derived from a magnification, the means by which the image is taken, the size of the image taken, and other parameters would impact these values. However, if it is based on the actual cavity sizes in the sinter bonding sheet then it does not appear how any cavities with such an area could be present.
For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting this to be the area of a cavity within the observation image.
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0317048 (Matsubara).
In regards to independent claim 1, Matsubara is directed to a conductive bonded assembly used in semiconductor devices. (¶1) Matsubara utilizes conductive metal particles comprised of particles of nickel or a nickel alloy and heating and sintering them without pressing to obtain a good sintered body. (¶22) A sintered body comprised of nickel particles allows for good bonding strength to be secured with a bondable member of a semiconductor chip on the Si or SiC substrate material or Cu or other metal material. (¶23)
It was found that by controlling the porosity in the bonding layer of the conductive bonded assembly to within a predetermined range, it is possible to suppress a drop in bonding strength and further raise the heat dissipation to secure the heat resistance. (¶26) The porosity due to voids of a circle equivalent diameter of 1 micron or more in any cross-section in the bonding layer should be made 30% or less. (¶26) It was further found that the porosity due to voids of a circle diameter of less than 1 micron in any cross-section in the bonding layer should be suitably controlled. (¶27) That is, it was found that by making the submicron size porosity 1% to 50%, it is possible to improve the sinterability and furthermore possible to keep down the drop in bonding strength. (¶27) Therefore, the range of the pores, corresponding to the cavities would be expected to overlap the claimed range at 100 times magnification.
The nickel particles are coated with a binder and an organic solvent on one bondable member and making it dry first, then coating a binder on the part corresponding to the bonding surface with the other bondable member, joining these bondable members, and heating them to fire them, it is possible to obtain a sintered body between the bondable members without pressing. (¶29) The nickel binders include 50 to 95 mass% nickel particles, an organic solvent of 5 to 50 mass %, a binder in 5 mass % or less, and a dispersant in 1 mass % or less. (¶87) Therefore, sheet contains a conductive metal and an organic binder.
As to claim 2, there does not appear to be any cavities or pores having an area of 9 mm2, therefore the area proportion would be zero.
As to claims 3 and 6, the nickel binders include 50 to 95 mass% nickel particles, an organic solvent of 5 to 50 mass %, a binder in 5 mass % or less, and a dispersant in 1 mass % or less. (¶87) The particle diameter distribution of the nickel particles should be controlled. (¶28) Nanoparticles with a mean particle diameter of 70 nm to 100 nm and microparticles of a mean particle diameter of 0.5 microns to 10 microns should be blended by a suitable ratio. (¶28) It was discovered that when defining the cross-sectional area of the nanoparticles (Pn) as “Sn” and the cross-sectional area of the microparticles (Pm) as “Sm”, the value of Sn/(Sn+Sm) should be 0.2 to 0.8. (¶28) An epoxy resin is utilized. (¶62) This corresponds to the materials utilized within the instant application. (See Specification ¶36-37, ¶29) Therefore, it would be expected that the product of the prior art would have the likewise complex viscosity.
As to claims 4, 7, and 9, the nickel binders include 50 to 95 mass% nickel particles, an organic solvent of 5 to 50 mass %, a binder in 5 mass % or less, and a dispersant in 1 mass % or less. (¶87) This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claims 5, 8, and 10-11, the particle diameter distribution of the nickel particles should be controlled. (¶28) Nanoparticles with a mean particle diameter of 70 nm to 100 nm and microparticles of a mean particle diameter of 0.5 microns to 10 microns should be blended by a suitable ratio. (¶28) It was discovered that when defining the cross-sectional area of the nanoparticles (Pn) as “Sn” and the cross-sectional area of the microparticles (Pm) as “Sm”, the value of Sn/(Sn+Sm) should be 0.2 to 0.8. (¶28) The average would therefore overlap the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights