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.
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 WIPO Publication 2020/189535 (WO ‘535).
In regards to Independent claim 1, WO ‘535 is directed to a support sheet-attached film-like bake material comprising a support sheet having an adhesive layer on a substrate film (Corresponding to a second substrate) and a film-like baked material provided on the adhesive layer (corresponding to a sinter bonding layer), wherein the film-like baked material contains sinterable metal particles and a binder component. (Abstract) It is possible to provide a film-shaped firing material with a support sheet that can stably pick up a chip with a film-shaped firing material that has been diced. (Lines 86-87)
Figure 1 shows a cross-sectional view schematically showing the film-shaped fire material with a support sheet. (Lines 116-117) Figure 4 shows a cross-sectional view schematically showing a roll body showing a state in which the roll winding is unwound and a part thereof is unfolded. (Lines 1162-1163) Two or more units of the film-shaped firing material with a support sheet processes into a predetermined shape are laminated on the release film with the film-shaped firing material inside. (Lines 1163-1165) These figures show the first substrate being larger than the sinter bonding layer and second substrate as set forth in the instant claims.
As to claim 2, as seen in Figure 5, a semiconductor wafer is laminated on the support sheet and the film-shaped firing material. (Lines 1191-1195) This wafer corresponds to a third substrate.
As to claim 3, as shown in Figure 4, the sinter bonding layer and second substrate are laminated intermittently.
As to claim 4, as shown in Figure 4, the area of the support sheet would be greater than the area of the sinter bonding layer and the second substrate layer since they are not continuously along the support sheet and do not extend beyond the width of the support sheet.
As to claim 5, as shown in Figure 5, the semiconductor wafer, corresponding to the claimed third substrate, would have a less surface area than the support sheet since it is not continuously along the support sheet and does not extend beyond the width of the support sheet.
As to claim 6, as shown in Figure 2, the film-shaped fire material has a diameter smaller than the support sheet. (Lines 138-144)
As to claim 7, it is preferably that the diameter of the film-like firing material is the same as or larger than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer. (Lines 1215-1216) This corresponds to the claimed size difference.
As to claims 8-10, a release film may be provided to function as a protective film for preventing damage and dirt adhesion of the film-like fired material. (Lines 225-228) The release film may be provided on at least one side of the film-like firing material. (Lines 228-229) With this layer present the resulting structure would have the four substrates as set forth in the instant claims. Additionally, the structure would correspond to the claimed dimensions as set forth in the instant claims. (See Figures 5, 6a-5d)
As to claim 11, the thickness of the release film is usually 10 to 500 microns. (Lines 241-242) This overlaps the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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