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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 9 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 March 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 January 2025 and 11 February 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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, 3-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 7,462,926 (Fu) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,169,266 (Hughes).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, and 9, Fu is directed to a method of producing a leadframe including providing a substrate, plating the substrate with a layer of tin, plating a layer of nickel over the layer of tin, and thereafter plating one or more protective layers over the layer of nickel. (Abstract) The leadframe may thereafter be heated to produce one or more intermetallic layers comprising tin, which impedes the out-diffusion of copper from a base material of the leadframe to the surface thereof. (Abstract)
In this formation, the tin layer corresponds to the claimed first metal layer and the nickel layer corresponds to the claimed second metal layer. Figure 4 of Fu is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 shows a pre-plated leadframe 10 with a first intermetallic layer formed between the layer of tin 14 and the substrate 12, and a second intermetallic layer 24 formed between the layer of tin 14 and the layer of nickel 16. (3:56-60) Therefore, an intermetallic compound layer is arranged between the first metal layer and second metal layer as set forth in the instant claims.
While Fu sets forth the layered structure, it does not set forth one or more openings as set forth in the instant claims.
In the related art of multi-layered coated surfaces, Hughes is directed to a system and method for incorporating graphic elements on a surface of an article by employing an ablative etching device, such as a laser etcher, that is capable of etching the elements into a coating on the article’s surface having at least two layers. (Abstract) The etching device etches into coating layers to a depth that removes the material outermost, exposed layer, but leaves intact at least a portion of the depth of an underlying layer. (2:47-50) As a result, the graphics and text take on the color of the particularly underlying layer exposed by the etching process. (2:50-52) If the graphics include conventional bar coding, the contrast provided by the layered coating scheme facilitates the accurate scanning of the bar codes. (2:57-60) Such design would be a marking in the form of a symbol.
Figure 3, reproduced below, is a cross-sectional view that shows three acceptable etch depths. (5:7-10) The holes can be etched to different depths. (5:16-21)
PNG
media_image2.png
135
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the ablative etching to the respective layers as taught by Hughes within the layered product of Fu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including providing graphic and text elements, such as a bar code, that are easily readable.
As to claim 3, Fu teaches the formation of an intermetallic compound as taught by the instant application. The non-wetting properties appear to be the result of the intermetallic compounds. Therefore, the product of Fu in view of Hughes would be expected to have this property.
As to claim 6, The leadframe can include a copper base material. (3:25-30)
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4,219,795 (Ueno) in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,169,266 (Hughes).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4-5, and 9, Ueno is directed to a surface-treated steel sheet having a tin plating layer, a metallic chromium layer, and a chromium oxide layer disposed on the metallic chromium layer. (Abstract) The surface-treated steel sheet can further include a Ni-containing layer disposed between the steel and the tin-plating layer. (¶34) The nickel coating has a coating weight of 2 mg/m2 or more and preferably 2000 mg/m2 or less. (¶37) The Ni-containing layer corresponds to the claimed first metal layer. The tin plating corresponds to the second metal layer. This structure would correspond to a substrate including a metal surface.
After forming the tin plating layer on the Ni-containing layer, reflow treatment can be used to form an alloy layer. (¶35) This would corresponds to the claimed intermetallic compound layer. This would comprise nickel-tin intermetallic compounds.
While Uneo sets forth the layered structure, it does not set forth one or more openings as set forth in the instant claims.
In the related art of multi-layered coated surfaces, Hughes is directed to a system and method for incorporating graphic elements on a surface of an article by employing an ablative etching device, such as a laser etcher, that is capable of etching the elements into a coating on the article’s surface having at least two layers. (Abstract) The etching device etches into coating layers to a depth that removes the material outermost, exposed layer, but leaves intact at least a portion of the depth of an underlying layer. (2:47-50) As a result, the graphics and text take on the color of the particularly underlying layer exposed by the etching process. (2:50-52) If the graphics include conventional bar coding, the contrast provided by the layered coating scheme facilitates the accurate scanning of the bar codes. (2:57-60) Such design would be a marking in the form of a symbol.
Figure 3, reproduced below, is a cross-sectional view that shows three acceptable etch depths. (5:7-10) The holes can be etched to different depths. (5:16-21)
PNG
media_image2.png
135
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the ablative etching to the respective layers as taught by Hughes within the layered product of Ueno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including providing graphic and text elements, such as a bar code, that are easily readable.
As to claim 3, Ueno teaches the formation of an intermetallic compound as taught by the instant application. The non-wetting properties appear to be the result of the intermetallic compounds. Therefore, the product of Ueno in view of Hughes would be expected to have this property.
As to claim 7, the nickel coating has a coating weight of 2 mg/m2 or more and preferably 2000 mg/m2 or less. (¶37) This would result in a first metal layer having a thickness with a range that overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 8, the Sn plating layer may contain Sn oxides. (¶38) Therefore, a tin oxide layer would at least partially cover the intermetallic compound layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights