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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments traverse the prior 112 rejections which are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response filed on 12/8/2025, Applicant alleges that Sugo “merely discloses a broad particle size range (0.01 μm to 50 μm, 0.1 μm to 5 μm), and does not teach the specific bimodal distribution structure of the claimed invention combining ’large particles of ≥ 2.0 μm’ and ‘small particles of ≤ 0.8 μm’.” Therefore, Applicant alleges that Sugo fails to disclose “the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less” as recited in claim 1. Thus, Applicant alleges that claim 1 is allowable under 103 over Suzuki in view of Sugo.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Sugo’s particle range falls within the claimed range of first and second metal particles. Therefore, Sugo’s range of particles reads on the claimed range of particles as recited in claim 1.
Although Sugo does not explicitly characterize the range as “large particles of ≥ 2.0 μm” and “small particles of ≤ 0.8 μm,” this specified claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Applicant’s specification does not disclose an unexpected result that occurs at the boundaries of the claimed range. For example, [0037] discloses the first particles have a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more, while [0039]-[0040] teaches the small second particles have a superior sintering property and that the diameter “may be 0.8 μm or less, 0.5 μm or less, 0.4 μm or less, or 0.3 μm or less.” However, the specification does not explain that the specific diameter of 0.8 μm produces an unexpected result as compared to diameters of 0.5 μm or less, 0.4 μm or less, or 0.3 μm or less.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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: “The electronic component according to claim 10, wherein the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less.”
However, claim 10 also recites this limitation. Therefore, claim 15 does not specify a further limitation of claim 10.
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
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Suzuki” (JP2007237212. Examiner’s note: citations herein refer to the English translation of Suzuki) in view of “Sugo” (US 2019/0206825).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses An electronic component comprising:
a compact (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the substrate 2 is formed of polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene naphthalate);
a metal wiring provided on the compact (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electrode 3 is a metal wiring provided on the substrate 2);
an electronic element disposed on the metal wiring (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electronic component 4 is an electronic element disposed on the electrode 3);
a solder layer bonding the metal wiring and the electronic element (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the solder 5 is a solder layer bonding the electrode 3 and the electronic component 4);
and a resin layer that covers at least a portion of the solder layer and is made of a cured product of a resin component (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the resin layer 6 covers at least a portion of the solder layer 5 and is made of a cured product of a resin component).
Suzuki does not disclose the metal wiring is made of a sintered body of metal particles; and the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less.
Sugo discloses a metal wiring is made of a sintered body of metal particles (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the precursor layer 31 is mode of sinterable metallic particles such as copper);
and the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the lower limit of the particle size is 0.1 μm while on the other hand, the upper limit of the particle size is 5 μm. Examiner’s note: see the “Response to Arguments” section above for a more detailed explanation of how Sugo reads on this claim limitation.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component with Sugo’s sintered body of metal particles in order to provide a thermal bonding sheet which can suppress a change in composition and stably provide a sintered layer having desired characteristics such as a high heat radiation property and low electric resistivity, as suggested by Sugo at [0003] and [0008].
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Sugo discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Sugo discloses the metal particles contain at least one metal selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the precursor layer 31 is mode of sinterable metallic particles such as copper).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein (US 5,397,532, “Blaimschein”).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Sugo discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Blaimschein discloses the metal wiring has pores (col. 2, lines 12-28; the sinterable mixture is compacted to form an electrode which has a porosity in which coarse pores will be formed during the sintering process).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo, with Blaimschein’s pores formed during the sintering process in order to provide a sintered electrode that has a high mechanical strength, as suggested by Blaimschein at col. 1, lines 62-68.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Blaimschein discloses wherein at least some of the pores are loaded with a cured product of the resin component (col. 1, lines 62-68; the sintered electrode has pores in which would be loaded with the cured resin layer).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo and Nakano et al. (US 9,162,324, “Nakano”).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Sugo discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Nakano discloses the solder layer contains tin (col. 4, line 3, a solder layer contains Sn-Bi alloy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo, with Nakano’s solder layer that contains an Sn-Bi alloy which exhibits improved wettability with respect to typical items for soldering, as suggested by Nakano at col. 2, lines 20-23.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Nakano discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Nakano discloses the solder layer is made of at least one tin alloy selected from a group consisting of an In-Sn alloy, an In-Sn-Ag alloy, a Sn-Bi alloy, a Sn-Bi-Ag alloy, a Sn-Ag-Cu alloy, and a Sn-Cu alloy (col. 4, line 3, a solder layer contains Sn-Bi alloy).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo and Imai (US 6,388,556, “Imai”).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Sugo discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Imai discloses the compact is made of a liquid crystal polymer or polyphenylene sulfide (Fig. 1A, col. 6, lines 31-37; the circuit board is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate, polyphenylene sulfide, polyether imide, polyimide, or the like).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo, with Imai’s polyphenylene sulfide, which is suitably selected corresponding to use conditions such as heat resistance required, as suggested by Imai at col. 6, lines 36-39.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo and Ishizuka et al. (US 2014/0125195, “Ishizuka”).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Sugo discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Suzuki discloses the electronic element has an electrode, and the electrode is bonded with the solder layer (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electronic component 4 has an electrode that is bonded with the solder layer 5).
Suzuki does not disclose the electrode containing at least one element selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin on an outermost surface.
Ishizuka discloses the electrode containing at least one element selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin on an outermost surface (Fig. 4, [0035], [0039]; the outermost layer 16, 18 of the electrodes 13 and 14 contain copper).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo, with Ishizuka’s copper layer in order to enhance the effect of suppressing or preventing ion migration, as suggested by Ishizuka at [0039].
Claims 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein (US 5,397,532, “Blaimschein”).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki An electronic component comprising:
a compact (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the substrate 2 is formed of polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene naphthalate);
a metal wiring provided on the compact (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electrode 3 is a metal wiring provided on the substrate 2);
an electronic element disposed on the metal wiring (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electronic component 4 is an electronic element disposed on the electrode 3);
a solder layer bonding the metal wiring and the electronic element (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the solder 5 is a solder layer bonding the electrode 3 and the electronic component 4);
and a resin layer that covers at least a portion of the solder layer and is made of a cured product of a resin component (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the resin layer 6 covers at least a portion of the solder layer 5 and is made of a cured product of a resin component),
Suzuki does not disclose the metal wiring is made of a sintered body of metal particles, wherein the metal wiring has pores naturally formed during sintering of the metal particles, and wherein the resin layer is formed from a resin component contained in a solder paste that also forms the solder layer, and at least some of the naturally formed pores in the metal wiring, located at an interface between the metal wiring and the compact, are loaded with a cured product of sed resin component from the solder paste, thereby enhancing adhesion between the metal wiring and the compact, and the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less
Sugo discloses a metal wiring is made of a sintered body of metal particles (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the precursor layer 31 is mode of sinterable metallic particles such as copper);
and the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the lower limit of the particle size is 0.1 μm while on the other hand, the upper limit of the particle size is 5 μm. Examiner’s note: see the “Response to Arguments” section above for a more detailed explanation of how Sugo reads on this claim limitation.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component with Sugo’s sintered body of metal particles in order to provide a thermal bonding sheet which can suppress a change in composition and stably provide a sintered layer having desired characteristics such as a high heat radiation property and low electric resistivity, as suggested by Sugo at [0003] and [0008].
Blaimschein discloses the metal wiring has pores and at least some of the pores are loaded with a cured product of the resin component, at least some of the naturally formed pores in the metal wiring, located at an interface between the metal wiring and the compact, are loaded with a cured product of sed resin component from the solder paste, located at an interface between the metal wiring and the compact (col. 1, lines 62-68; col. 2, lines 12-28; the sinterable mixture is compacted to form an electrode which has a porosity in which coarse pores will be formed during the sintering process, wherein the sintered electrode has pores in which would be loaded with the cured resin layer, in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would locate at an interface between the metal wiring and the compact. Examiner’s note: the limitation naturally formed during sintering of the metal particles, the resin layer is formed from a resin component contained in a solder paste that also forms the solder layer are process limitations in a product claim and are treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. As these process limitations use a product structure that is the same as the product of Blaimschein, this claim is therefore disclosed by Blaimschein. The limitation thereby enhancing adhesion between the metal wiring and the compact is recognized as a result effective variable, thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Blaimschein’s pores and electrodes would enhance adhesion between the metal wiring and the compact. See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo, with Blaimschein’s pores formed during the sintering process in order to provide a sintered electrode that has a high mechanical strength, as suggested by Blaimschein at col. 1, lines 62-68.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 10, above.
Sugo discloses the metal particles contain at least one metal selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the precursor layer 31 is mode of sinterable metallic particles such as copper).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 10, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Sugo discloses the metal particles comprise first metal particles having a particle diameter of 2.0 μm or more and second metal particles having a particle diameter of 0.8 μm or less (Figs. 2, 4, [0079]-[0082]; the lower limit of the particle size is 0.1 μm while on the other hand, the upper limit of the particle size is 5 μm. Examiner’s note: see the 112 rejection above regarding this limitation.).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo, Blaimschein and Nakano.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 10, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Nakano discloses the solder layer contains tin (col. 4, line 3, a solder layer contains Sn-Bi alloy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo and Blaimschein, with Nakano’s solder layer that contains an Sn-Bi alloy which exhibits improved wettability with respect to typical items for soldering, as suggested by Nakano at col. 2, lines 20-23.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki in view of Sugo, Blaimschein and Nakano discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 11, above.
Suzuki does not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Nakano discloses the solder layer is made of at least one tin alloy selected from a group consisting of an In-Sn alloy, an In-Sn-Ag alloy, a Sn-Bi alloy, a Sn-Bi-Ag alloy, a Sn-Ag-Cu alloy, and a Sn-Cu alloy (col. 4, line 3, a solder layer contains Sn-Bi alloy).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sugo, Blaimschein and Ishizuka.
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki in view of Sugo and Blaimschein discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 10, above.
Suzuki discloses the electronic element has an electrode, and the electrode is bonded with the solder layer (Fig. 2, page 3, bottom; the electronic component 4 has an electrode that is bonded with the solder layer 5).
Suzuki does not disclose the electrode containing at least one element selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin on an outermost surface.
Ishizuka discloses the electrode containing at least one element selected from a group consisting of copper, nickel, palladium, gold, platinum, silver, and tin on an outermost surface (Fig. 4, [0035], [0039]; the outermost layer 16, 18 of the electrodes 13 and 14 contain copper).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Suzuki’s electronic component, as modified by Sugo and Blaimschein, with Ishizuka’s copper layer in order to enhance the effect of suppressing or preventing ion migration, as suggested by Ishizuka at [0039].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawana, US 2020/0075528, teaches a metal paste comprising sub-micro particles and micro particles that appears to read on certain limitations of the present application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/STANLEY TSO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights