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 § 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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a first intermetallic layer consisting of tin and nickel”. According to conventional patent drafting, including the phrase “consisting of” in a claim is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to include only the materials or structures recited following the phrase. However, the Applicant’s specification recites “ ‘Consisting of’ in connection with the first intermetallic phase means that the material content of foreign elements, i.e. elements, in particular metals, other than Sn and Ni, is in particular not higher than 20at.%, preferably not higher than 10 at.%, more preferably not higher than 5 at%, even more preferably not higher than 0.5 at.%.” The Applicant’s definition in the specification for “consisting of” is completely opposite of that of conventional patent drafting. Therefore, it is unclear in claim 1 whether “consisting of” requires that the first intermetallic layer has only the elements stated (tin and nickel) or whether the claim allows for additional elements to be present in the intermetallic layer. Appropriate change is required to clarify the claim language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner treats the term “consisting of” in claim 1 to be consistent with the Applicant definition provided in the Applicant’s specification where consisting of allows for additional elements to be present beyond that of just tin and nickel.
Claims 2-4 and 16 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “optionally a first barrier layer and a second barrier layer, the second barrier layer being arranged between the second metallic layer and the third metallic layer.” However, it is unclear whether the statement “optionally” applies to both the first and second barrier layers or just the first barrier layer. Appropriate changes is required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the term optionally to apply to both the first and second barrier layers.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “a method of manufacturing an electronic component according to claim 1”. However, the remainder of claim 5 fails to provide any recitation of forming or providing of the first, second and third intermetallic layers. Therefore, it is unclear what structure claim 5 is seeking to form with the method, more specifically whether or not the claim requires a first, second and third intermetallic layer to be formed. Appropriate changes should be made to clarify the language. Further, as it is unclear how claim 5 is structurally related claim 1, the Examiner may use the same item numbers to identify different structures in the different rejections.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “a substrate” in line 3. However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, also recites a substrate. Therefore, it is unclear whether the a substrate in claim 5 is the same or different than the structure of a substrate recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the a substrate is claim 5 to be different than a substrate in claim 1.
Claims 6-15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “where the first barrier layer has a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 50 nm, preferably in the range from 20nm to 40 nm. It is unclear from this language whether the claim requires a thickness range of 10 to 50 nm or 20 to 40 nm. Further, the word “preferably” does not render the range 20 to 40 nm to be required. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. For purposes of compact prosecution the Examiner interprets the claim language to require a thickness range between 10 nm and 50 nm.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “applying a cover to the optoelectronic.” It is unclear which structure “the optoelectronic” refers as only “the optoelectronic component” is recited previously. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the language. However, the Examiner believes this to be a typographical error and interprets “the optoelectronic” to be “the optoelectronic component”.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “electronic component manufactured according to a method of claim 5”. However, claim 5 recites in its preamble “a method of manufacturing an electronic component according to claim 1”. Therefore, it is unclear what structure claim 15 is claiming. Appropriate change is required to clarify the language.
Claim 17 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “electronic component manufactured according to a method of claim 5”. However, claim 5 already recites in its preamble “a method of manufacturing an electronic component according to claim 1”. Therefore, as claim 5 already states that the claim is directed to a method of forming an electronic component, claim 15 does not seem to further limit claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 2020/0211997) hereinafter “Mueller” in view of Fujita et al. (US 2024/0429675) hereinafter “Fujita”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1D of Mueller teaches an electronic component comprising: a substrate (Item 4a), an optoelectronic component (Item 1; Paragraph 0056), a first intermetallic layer (Item 5a) consisting of (See 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above) tin and nickel (Paragraph 0083), a second intermetallic layer (Item 5b) comprising tin and titanium (Paragraph 0083), a third intermetallic layer (Item 5c) comprising tin and gold (Paragraph 0084), where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the zeta phase (Paragraph 0084).
Mueller does not teach where the amount of tin and gold in the third intermetallic layer is approximately the same nor where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase.
Fujita teaches where a solder layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase (Paragraph 0061) where the delta phase of the gold-tin-alloy has has a gold content relatively similar to a tin content (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of tin and gold in the third intermetallic layer be approximately the same and where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase because the gold-tin alloy of the delta phase is known to have a high melting point (Fujita Paragraph 0061) which is known to prevent mounted components from becoming misaligned during additional manufacturing (Fujita Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mueller and Fujita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Mueller does not teach where the weight percentage of tin in the third intermetallic layer is in the range between 33 wt% to 42 wt% preferably in the range between 36 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the third intermetallic layer.
Fujita further teaches where the weight percentage of tin in the third intermetallic layer is in the range between 33 wt% to 42 wt% preferably in the range between 36 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the third intermetallic layer (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the weight percentage of tin in the third intermetallic layer be in the range between 33 wt% to 42 wt% preferably in the range between 36 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the third intermetallic layer because this wt% of tin is known to yield a gold-tin alloy having a high melting point (Fujita Paragraph 0061) which is known to prevent mounted components from becoming misaligned during additional manufacturing (Fujita Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 1D of Mueller further teaches a cover layer (Item 3; where Item 3 covers Item 4a).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 1D of Mueller further teaches a frame (Item 3; Paragraph 0008).
Under an alternate interpretation of Mueller, Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1D of Mueller teaches an electronic component comprising: a substrate (Item 3), an optoelectronic component (Item 1; Paragraph 0056), a first intermetallic layer (Item 5a) consisting of (See 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above) tin and nickel (Paragraph 0083), a second intermetallic layer (Item 5b) comprising tin and titanium (Paragraph 0083), a third intermetallic layer (Item 5c) comprising tin and gold (Paragraph 0084), where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the zeta phase (Paragraph 0084).
Mueller does not teach where the amount of tin and gold in the third intermetallic layer is approximately the same nor where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase.
Fujita teaches where a solder layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase (Paragraph 0061) where the delta phase of the gold-tin-alloy has has a gold content relatively similar to a tin content (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of tin and gold in the third intermetallic layer be approximately the same and where the third intermetallic layer comprises a gold-tin alloy of the delta phase because the gold-tin alloy of the delta phase is known to have a high melting point (Fujita Paragraph 0061) which is known to prevent mounted components from becoming misaligned during additional manufacturing (Fujita Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mueller and Fujita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 1D of Mueller teaches a method of manufacturing an electronic component according to claim 1 (When combined with Fujita; See the rejection of claim 1 above; For purposes of brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), comprising: providing a substrate (Item 5c) comprising a first metallic layer comprising gold (Paragraph 0079), providing an optoelectronic component (Item 1; Paragraph 0056), providing a solder metal layer sequence comprising a second metallic layer (Portion of Item 4a) consisting of tin (Paragraph 0016 where some of the layer of tin does not react with indium) and a third metallic layer (Item 5a).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that “optionally a first barrier layer and a second barrier layer, the second barrier layer being arranged between the second metallic layer and the third metallic layer” is an optional clause and therefore is not required to be read upon (See 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above).
Alternatively, Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mueller and Fujita teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 1D of Mueller teaches a method of manufacturing an electronic component according to claim 1 (When combined with Fujita; See the rejection of claim 1 above; For purposes of brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), comprising: providing a substrate (Item 5) comprising a first metallic layer comprising gold (Paragraph 0079), providing an optoelectronic component (Item 1; Paragraph 0056), providing a solder metal layer sequence comprising a second metallic layer (Portion of Item 4a) consisting of tin (Paragraph 0016 where some of the layer of tin does not react with indium) and a third metallic layer (Item 5a), a first barrier layer (Item 5b, where Item 5b is a physical barrier between Items 5a and 5c).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that “optionally a first barrier layer and a second barrier layer, the second barrier layer being arranged between the second metallic layer and the third metallic layer” is an optional clause and therefore is not required to be read upon (See 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above).
Under the alternate rejection of claim 5, Regarding claim 6, Fig. 1D of Mueller further teaches further comprising the first barrier layer (Item 5b, where Item 5b is a physical barrier between Items 5a and 5c) and applying the solder metal sequence (Portion of Item 4a and Item 5a) to the first metallic layer (Item 5c) , wherein the first barrier layer (Item 5b) is disposed between (See Examiner’s Note below) the first metallic layer (Item 5c) and the second metallic layer (Portion of Item 4a).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the term “between” does not require direct contact but instead allows for intervening layers to be present.
Under the alternate rejection of claim 5, Regarding claim 7, Fig. 1D of Mueller further teaches where the first barrier layer (Item 5b) comprises titanium (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 1D of Mueller further teaches where the first barrier layer has a thickness in the range from 10 nm to 50 nm (Paragraph 0038 where the thickness between 5 nm and 200 nm inclusive).
Regarding claim 15, An electronic component manufactured according to a method of claim 5 (See rejection of claim 5 above; for brevity the rejection of claim 5 will not be repeated here).
Regarding claim 16, Mueller further teaches use of an electric component according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; for brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here) in display applications (Paragraph 0056 where the component generates light or radiation).
Regarding claim 17, Use of an electronic component according to claim 15 in general lighting or display applications (Paragraph 0056 where the component generates light or radiation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights