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 § 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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-6,8-9,12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110254156 A1 (Lin) in view of US 20200303339 A1 (Arvin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin shows (Fig. 5g) an electronic device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
232
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an integrated circuit chip (124, para 58);
a package (190, molding, para 61) surrounding the integrated circuit chip; and
at least a first conductive region (134, para 59) at least partially coating one side of the integrated circuit chip, the first conductive region including an alloy of bismuth (para 91).
Lin does not show the first conductive region including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth.
Arvin shows (Fig. 4) the first conductive region (24, para 41) including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth (claim 11 or para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to modify the invention of Lin, including first conductive region, with the invention of Arvin.
The motivation to do so is that the combination has a high heat resistant first conductive region with a high melting temperature (para 41).
Regarding claim 2, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows the alloy has a bismuth content of over 80% (Arvin, para 41).
Regarding claim 3, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows wherein the alloy has a bismuth content approximately equal to 90% (Arvin, claim 11).
Regarding claim 4, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows wherein the alloy further includes at least one additive element selected from silver, nickel and tin (Lin, Ni, para 91).
Regarding claim 5, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows wherein the alloy has a content of the at least one additive element (tin) of less than 10% (Lin, since bismuth can be more than 90%, para 68).
Regarding claim 6, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows wherein the alloy has a content of at least one additive element equal to approximately 5% (Lin, since bismuth can be more than 90%, para 68).
Regarding claim 8, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows the alloy.
Lin as previously modified with Arvin does not specify the melting point.
However, when the semiconductor compound recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, Lin shows (Fig. 5g) a support (194) and interconnection substrate (180);
at least one contact-making element located (174) on one face of the support and interconnection substrate (on the face of interconnection support).
Lin does not show at least one second conductive region interposed between the at least one contact making element and the at least one first conductive region.
Arvin shows (Fig. 4) at least one second conductive region (18, para 41) interposed between the at least one contact making element (12, para 38) and the at least one first conductive region (24, para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Arvin, with second conductive region, to the invention of Lin.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of high conductivity interconnect (para 41).
Regarding claim 12, Lin shows (Fig. 5g) a method, comprising:
surrounding an integrated circuit chip (124, para 58) with a package, including:
at least partially coating a front face of an integrated circuit chip with a first conductive region (134, para 59) including an alloy of bismuth (para 91); and
forming an encapsulation layer (190, molding, para 61) on sidewalls and a back face of the integrated circuit chip.
Lin does not show the first conductive region including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth.
Arvin shows (Fig. 4) the first conductive region (24, para 41) including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth (claim 11 or para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to modify the invention of Lin, including first conductive region, with the invention of Arvin.
The motivation to do so is that the combination has a high heat resistant first conductive region with a high melting temperature (para 41).
Regarding claim 18, Lin shows (Fig. 5g) an electronic device including:
a substrate (180, RDL substrate, para 58); and
a package (124 molded with 190) on the substrate, the package including:
an integrated circuit chip (124);
an encapsulation layer (190) on a first face and on sidewalls of the integrated circuit chip; and
a first conductive region at least partially coating a second face of the integrated circuit chip, the first conductive region including an alloy of bismuth (para 91).
Lin does not show the first conductive region including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth.
Arvin shows (Fig. 4) the first conductive region (24, para 41) including an alloy of at least 50% bismuth (claim 11 or para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to modify the invention of Lin, including first conductive region, with the invention of Arvin.
The motivation to do so is that the combination has a high heat resistant first conductive region with a high melting temperature (para 41).
It is noted that the recitation “a motor vehicle, comprising” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In this claim, there are no further structural limitations imposed by the “a motor vehicle” recitation. Moreover, the use of packaged rectifiers in a motor vehicle is well established.
2. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Arvin as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20060113683 A1 (Dean).
Regarding claim 7, Lin as previously modified with Arvin shows the alloy having bismuth content equal to approximately 90%.
Lin as previously modified with Arvin does not show the alloy having a silver content equal to approximately 5%; and a nickel content equal to approximately 5%.
Dean shows a silver content equal to approximately 5%; and a nickel content equal to approximately 5% (para 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Dean, with silver, nickel content, to the invention of Lin as previously modified with Arvin.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized combination of alloy of Dean is suitable for the intended use of Lin as previously modified with Arvin (MPEP §2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11,13-17,19-20 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.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “the second conductive region covers a flank of the first conductive region”.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the second conductive region is made of an alloy of tin, silver and copper”.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “partially coating the front face includes depositing a first portion of the alloy on a first contact making element and depositing a second portion of the alloy on a second contact making element on the front face, the first and second portions being separated by a gap”.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “the second conductive region positioned on a sidewall of the first conductive region”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights