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 .
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27, lines 1-2 recite “a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion,” further including “a manufacturing method for a bonded body.” This claim is indefinite because while claim 27 begins by reciting an apparatus, and further includes a method of manufacturing the apparatus.
A single claim that includes both an apparatus and a method of manufacturing the apparatus is indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
Claims 28-30 are rejected as depending on rejected claim 27.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16, 18, 21-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (U.S. 2019/0363068 A1, hereinafter refer to Hotta) in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2023/0028353 A1, hereinafter refer to Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1: Hotta discloses a manufacturing method for a bonded body (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown below and ¶ [0002]), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
372
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
preparing a substrate A (32) having a surface on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above);
forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the surface of the substrate A (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]);
preparing a substrate B (32) having a surface on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above); and
bonding the surface of the substrate A (32), where the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32), to the surface of the substrate B (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate B (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]).
Hotta is silent upon explicitly disclosing the characteristics of polyimide-containing precursor portion during boding process wherein a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at a bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 5% or more.
However, Hotta teaches controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]) which is necessarily affect the characteristics of polyimide-containing precursor portion such as cyclization or imidation rate during boding process and necessarily results the claimed limitation of “wherein a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at a bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 5% or more” as now specified in claim 1. For support see Suzuki, which teaches, wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Note, discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art polyimide-containing precursor portion, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s polyimide-containing precursor portion, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Regarding Claims 2-3: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the cyclization rate of the polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 40% to 90% (as claimed in claim 2);
wherein the cyclization rate of the polyimide in the polyimide-containing portion formed at the bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 91% to 100% (as claimed in claim 3).
However, The combination of Hotta and Suzuki teaches wherein controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]), and wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 4: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein a bonding temperature in the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 380° C or lower (100° C. to 400° C) (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]).
Regarding Claim 5: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein a bonding temperature in the bonding of the surface of the substrate A (32) is equal to or higher than a melting point of the wiring line terminal of the substrate A (32) and equal to or higher than a melting point of the wiring line terminal of the substrate B (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 6: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein the forming of the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) includes (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above);
applying a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) onto the surface of the substrate A (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above), and
heating the applied composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) at a temperature lower than a melting point of the wiring line terminal (37) of the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 7: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein a form of the substrate A (32) is a wafer (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 8: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein a form of the substrate B (32) is a chip (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 9: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein a form of the substrate B (32) is a wafer (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 10: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein flattening a surface of the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.4 and ¶ [0132]),
wherein the forming of the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36), the flattening (polishing) of the surface of the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the substrate A (32), and the bonding of the surface of the substrate A (32) are included in this order (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above, Fig.4, and ¶ [0132]).
Regarding Claim 11: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein in the bonding of the surface of the substrate A (32), an electrode (30) included on the surface of the substrate A (32), where the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32), and an electrode (30) on the surface of the substrate B (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate B (32), are bonded to be in direct contact with each other (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 12: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein forming a second polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the surface of the substrate B (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate B (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above),
wherein the forming of the second polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) and the bonding of the surface of the substrate A (32) are included in this order (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the second polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A and the cyclization rate of the polyimide contained in the polyimide-containing portion formed at the bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 5% or more (as claimed in claim 13);
wherein the cyclization rate of the polyimide in the second polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 40% to 90% (as claimed in claim 14).
However, The combination of Hotta and Suzuki teaches wherein controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]), and wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 16: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein the forming of the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) is applying a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion onto the surface of the substrate A (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above), and
the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) contains a polyimide precursor and a solvent (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0630] or see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Regarding Claim 18: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 16 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a polymerizable compound having a ring structure (see Suzuki, ¶ [0013]- ¶ [0014]).
Regarding Claim 21: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 16 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches a bonded body that is obtained by the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 22: Hotta discloses a manufacturing method for a laminate (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0002]), comprising:
preparing a substrate C (32) having two or more surfaces on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided; preparing a plurality of substrates D (32) each having a surface on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above);
forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the surface of at least one of the substrate C (32) or the substrate D (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the at least one of the substrate C (32) or the substrate D (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]); and
bonding the surface of the substrate D (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided, to each of at least two surfaces of the substrate C (37), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above),
wherein all of a plurality of bonded portions in the bonding of the surface of the substrate D (32) include the polyimide-containing precursor portion (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]).
Hotta is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein in at least one bonded portion, a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate D and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at the bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate D is 5% or more.
However, Hotta teaches controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]) which is necessarily affect the characteristics of polyimide-containing precursor portion such as cyclization or imidation rate during boding process and necessarily results the claimed limitation of “wherein in at least one bonded portion, a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate D and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at the bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate D is 5% or more” as now specified in claim 22. For support see Suzuki, which teaches, wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Note, discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art polyimide-containing precursor portion, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s polyimide-containing precursor portion, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Regarding Claim 24: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a laminate as set forth in claim 22 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches a laminate that is obtained by the manufacturing method for a laminate according to claim 22 (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 25: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 1 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches a manufacturing method for a device, comprising: the manufacturing method for a bonded body according to claim 1 (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 26: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 21 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki further teaches a device comprising: the bonded body according to claim 21 (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 27: Hotta discloses a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion, which is used in a manufacturing method for a bonded body (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0002]), the manufacturing method including:
preparing a substrate A (32) having a surface on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above);
forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) on the surface of the substrate A (32), where a wiring line terminal (37) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]);
preparing a substrate B (32) having a surface on which a wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above); and
bonding the surface of the substrate A (32), where the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) is provided on the surface of the substrate A (32), to the surface of the substrate B (32), where the wiring line terminal (37) is provided (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]),
wherein the polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) is a member formed from the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion (36) (see Hotta, Fig.5 as shown above and ¶ [0141]).
Hotta is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at a bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 5% or more.
However, Hotta teaches controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]) which is necessarily affect the characteristics of polyimide-containing precursor portion such as cyclization or imidation rate during boding process and necessarily results the claimed limitation of “wherein a difference between a cyclization rate of a polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A and a cyclization rate of a polyimide in a polyimide-containing portion formed at a bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 5% or more” as now specified in claim 27. For support see Suzuki, which teaches, wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Note, discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art polyimide-containing precursor portion, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s polyimide-containing precursor portion, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Regarding Claims 28 and 29: Hotta as modified teaches a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion, which is used in a manufacturing method for a bonded body as set forth in claim 27 as above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the cyclization rate of the polyimide in the polyimide-containing precursor portion before the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 40% to 90% (as claimed in claim 28);
wherein the cyclization rate of the polyimide in the polyimide-containing portion formed at the bonded portion after the bonding of the surface of the substrate A is 91% to 100% (as claimed in claim 29).
However, The combination of Hotta and Suzuki teaches wherein controlling bonding by adjusting the amount reaction temperature, pressure, and reaction time during bonding (see Hotta, ¶ [0207]- ¶ [0216]), and wherein the polyimide is a polyimide obtained by cyclizing a polyimide precursor, and in this polyimide, the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) of the amic acid group is not necessarily 100% and can be adjusted as desired depending on its application or purpose. In particular, the cyclization rate is preferably 30 to 85% from the viewpoint of the solubility of the polyimide-based polymer in a solvent. More preferred is 40 to 80% (see Suzuki, ¶ [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta and Suzuki to determine the workable or optimal value for the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the cyclization rate (also referred to as imidization rate) is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (U.S. 2019/0363068 A1, hereinafter refer to Hotta) and Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2023/0028353 A1, hereinafter refer to Suzuki) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chun et al. (U.S. 2016/0013160 A1, hereinafter refer to Chun).
Regarding Claim 15: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as applied to claim 1 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the substrate B includes an inorganic insulating film between the wiring line terminals of the substrate B.
For support see Chun, which teaches wherein the substrate B (101-2) includes an inorganic insulating film (150/120) between the wiring line terminals (160115/110) of the substrate B (101-2) (see Chun, Figs.5H-7 as shown below, ¶ [0004], ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0085]- ¶ [0086]).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
680
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
440
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Chun to enable the substrate B of the combination of Hotta’s and Suzuki’s to include an inorganic insulating film between the wiring line terminals of the substrate B as taught by Chun in order to provide a wafer-to-wafer structure in which a predetermined bonding force may be maintained without a dummy pattern and defects caused by gaps and/or voids may be reduced or prevented.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (U.S. 2019/0363068 A1, hereinafter refer to Hotta) and Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2023/0028353 A1, hereinafter refer to Suzuki) as applied to claims 1, 16, 22, and 27 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (U.S. 2021/0040370 A1, hereinafter refer to Yamashita).
Regarding Claim 17: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as applied to claim 1 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a migration suppressing agent.
For support see Yamashita, which teaches wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a migration suppressing agent (migration inhibitor) (see Yamashita, ¶ [0220], and ¶ [0510]- ¶ [0521]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Yamashita to enable the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion to contain a migration suppressing agent (migration inhibitor) as taught by Yamashita in order to obtain a thermal conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 20: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as applied to claim 16 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a filler.
For support see Yamashita, which teaches wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a filler (see Yamashita, ¶ [0220], and ¶ [0401]- ¶ [0403]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Yamashita to enable the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion to contain a filler as taught by Yamashita in order to obtain a thermal conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 23: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a laminate as applied to claim 22 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a filler.
For support see Yamashita, which teaches wherein the polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a filler (see Yamashita, ¶ [0220], and ¶ [0401]- ¶ [0403]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Yamashita to enable the polyimide-containing precursor portion to contain a filler as taught by Yamashita in order to obtain a thermal conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 30: Hotta as modified teaches a composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion, which is used in a manufacturing method for a bonded body as applied to claim 27 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein further comprising a filler.
For support see Yamashita, which teaches wherein further comprising a filler (see Yamashita, ¶ [0220], and ¶ [0401]- ¶ [0403]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Yamashita to enable the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion to contain a filler as taught by Yamashita in order to obtain a thermal conductive layer.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (U.S. 2019/0363068 A1, hereinafter refer to Hotta) and Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2023/0028353 A1, hereinafter refer to Suzuki) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (U.S. 2024/0085789 A1, hereinafter refer to Sato).
Regarding Claim 19: Hotta as modified teaches a manufacturing method for a bonded body as applied to claim 16 above. The combination of Hotta and Suzuki is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a polymerizable compound in which a glass transition temperature of a homopolymer is 200oC or higher.
For support see Sato, which teaches wherein the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion contains a polymerizable compound in which a glass transition temperature of a homopolymer is 200oC or higher (150oC or higher) (see Sato, ¶ [0001] and ¶ [0004]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hotta, Suzuki, and Sato to enable the composition for forming a polyimide-containing precursor portion to contain a polymerizable compound in which a glass transition temperature of a homopolymer is 200oC or higher (150oC or higher) as taught by Sato in order to obtain a photosensitive polyimide resin composition for forming a resin film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights