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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita e al. (US 20150208516 A1 – hereinafter Yamashita).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamashita teaches:
(Original) A solder ([0022] – “A solder cream obtained by kneading an
Sn--Ag--Cu alloy with a flux”) containing Cu at a content of 3 to 9 wt% ([0022] – “2 to 20% by weight of Cu”), Sb at a content of 6.7 to 9.6 wt% ([0022] – “not more than 8% (and more than 0%) by weight of Sb”), and Sn ([0022] – “A solder cream obtained by kneading an Sn--Ag--Cu alloy with a flux”), and added with one or a plurality of types of elements among Fe of 0.004 to 0.01 wt% ([0024] – “A more specific form of a solder cream is characterized in that the first and/or second powder alloy contains at least one of elements Ni, Fe, Co and Ge added thereto in the amount of not more than 1.0% by weight in the case of Ni, Fe or Co”), Bi of 0.002 to 0.04 wt% ([0022] – “not more than 10% (and more than 0%) by weight of Bi”), Pb of 0.01 to 0.09 wt%, and As of 0.0125 to 0.02 wt%.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Yamashita further teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Fe is added at 0.004 to 0.01 wt% ([0024] – “A more specific form of a
solder cream is characterized in that the first and/or second powder alloy contains at least one of elements Ni, Fe, Co and Ge added thereto in the amount of not more than 1.0% by weight in the case of Ni, Fe or Co”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Yamashita further teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Bi is added at 0.002 to 0.04 wt% ([0022] – “not more than 10% (and
more than 0%) by weight of Bi”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Yamashita further teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein In is added at 0.01 to 0.45 wt% ([0022] – “not more than 10% (and
more than 0%) by weight of In”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Yamashita further teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Zn is added ([0014] – “an Sn--Ag--Cu solder and a solder prepared by
adding one or more of In, Zn and Bi thereto”) at 0.001 to 0.1 wt% (In and/or Bi are added by “not more than 10% (and more than 0%) by weight” which is interpreted to meant that Zn is added by “not more than 10% (and more than 0%) by weight”).
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 20240399512 A1 – hereinafter Yokoyama).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Yamashita does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Yokoyama teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Pb is added at 0.01 to 0.09 wt% ([0028] – “The solder alloy according
to (1) or (2) above, further comprising, by mass %, at least one of Zr, Fe, Ge, Ga, P, As, Pb, Zn, Mg, Cr, Ti, Mn, Mo, Pt, Pd, Au, Al, and Si: 0.1% or less in total”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the lead content as taught by Yokoyama into Yamashita.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yokoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0011] – “However, the solder alloys described in the documents referenced above are designed by mainly focusing on the heat cycle properties as described above. When electronic equipment is exposed to a heat cycle, due to a difference in coefficient of thermal expansion between a substrate and electronic components, stress is applied to solder joints. On the other hand, when vibration is applied to a vehicle-mounted electronic circuit, the way of application of stress is considered to be different from that of stress caused by expansion and contraction of the printed circuit board and electronic components occurring in a heat cycle. In this way, even when various stresses are applied to solder joints due to deterioration of a use environment caused by high functionality and expansion of the use of electronic equipment in recent years, in order to avoid the solder joints from being ruptured, the strength of the solder alloy itself needs to be improved.”
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Yamashita does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Yokoyama teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein As is added at 0.0125 to 0.02 wt% ([0028] – “The solder alloy
according to (1) or (2) above, further comprising, by mass %, at least one of Zr, Fe, Ge, Ga, P, As, Pb, Zn, Mg, Cr, Ti, Mn, Mo, Pt, Pd, Au, Al, and Si: 0.1% or less in total”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the arsenic content as taught by Yokoyama into Yamashita.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yokoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Yamashita does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Yokoyama teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Si is added at 0.001 to 0.1 wt% ([0028] – “The solder alloy according
to (1) or (2) above, further comprising, by mass %, at least one of Zr, Fe, Ge, Ga, P, As, Pb, Zn, Mg, Cr, Ti, Mn, Mo, Pt, Pd, Au, Al, and Si: 0.1% or less in total”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the silicon content as taught by Yokoyama into Yamashita.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yokoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Yamashita does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Yokoyama teaches
(Original) The solder according to claim 1,
wherein Au is added at 0.001 to 0.09 wt% ([0028] – “The solder alloy according
to (1) or (2) above, further comprising, by mass %, at least one of Zr, Fe, Ge, Ga, P, As, Pb, Zn, Mg, Cr, Ti, Mn, Mo, Pt, Pd, Au, Al, and Si: 0.1% or less in total”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the silicon content as taught by Yokoyama into Yamashita.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yokoyama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Nakase et al. (US 20050156324 A1 – hereinafter Nakase).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. Yamashita does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Nakase teaches
(Currently Amended) A semiconductor device ([0003] – “This solder bonding
process is performed in such a manner that a solder pellet is sandwiched between the semiconductor device and the substrate”) in which an Ni-based electrode provided in a semiconductor element is bonded with the solder ([0019] – “the nickel electrode and the solder layer 30 are bonded directly”) according to claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the semiconductor device structure as taught by Nakase into Yamashita.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nakase in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0002] – “a method for manufacturing a connection construction having a first and a second connection members bonded with a solder layer.”
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20200398382 A1 and US 20160300809 A1 are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including specific element ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights