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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
The previous double patenting rejections over application US 17/288913, 17/613933, and U.S. Patent No. 11195728 and 11682564 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and Applicant’s filed terminal disclaimers.
Claims 8-18 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement filed January 17, 2025.
The 103 rejection of claim 19 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are pending.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A temporary protective film comprising:
A support film; and
An adhesive layer provided on one or both surface of the support film,
Wherein the support film is a polyimide film, and
Wherein a thickness of the adhesive is less than 8 µm,
wherein the adhesive layer comprises:
at least one organic polymer selected from an aromatic polyamide, an aromatic polyester, an aromatic polyimide, an aromatic polyamideimide, an aromatic polyether, an aromatic polyetheramideimide, an aromatic polyetherimide, an aromatic polyesterimide, and an aromatic polyetherimide; and
a silane compound having a silyl group and a reactive group, wherein an amount of the silane compound is more than 15% by mass and 35% by mass or less with respect to an amount of the organic polymer,
wherein the adhesive layer is configured to have a 90-degree peel strength, between the adhesive layer and a lead frame as well as a sealing layer, of 600 N/m or less at 1800C when the temporary protective film is attached to a lead frame having a die pad and an inner lead such that the adhesive layer comes into contact with the lead frame, a semiconductor element is mounted on a surface of the die pad, the surface being on the opposite side of the temporary protective film, and
wherein subsequently the semiconductor element, the lead frame, and the temporary protective film are heated for 3 hours at 240*C, and then a sealing layer that seals the semiconductor element while being in contact with the adhesive layer is formed.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateoka et al. (US 20090091012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tateoka et al. disclose an adhesive film in Example 5 wherein a support polyimide film is coated with an adhesive layer on one face of the support polyimide film, comprising 120 g of an aromatic polyetheramideimde and 3.6 g of a silane coupling agent SH6040, equivalent to 2.9 wt% of a silane compound, thereby reading on the support film and adhesive layer comprising the organic polymer and silane compound but lying outside the claimed range of the silane compound recited in the instant claim. Tateoka et al. also disclose the adhesive layer of Example 5 has a thickness of 8 µm, thereby lying outside the claimed range.
However, Tateoka et al. broadly teach the silane coupling agent is added in an amount of 0.1 to 50.0 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin, equivalent to 0.1 to 50 wt% with respect to an amount of the organic polymer and thereby overlapping the claimed range. Additionally, Tateoka et al. broadly teach the thickness of the adhesive layer is 1 to 75 µm [0021], thereby overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an amount within the range taught by Tateoka et al.
Tateoka et al. is silent on the peel strength as recited in the instant claim.
However, peel strength is dependent on the components present. Tateoka et al. teach a substantially identical protective film. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the peel strength to be expected.
Regarding claim 2, Tateoka et al. teach the adhesive film has a thickness of 1 to 75 µm [0021] as recited in the rejection for claim 1 above, thereby overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Tateoka et al. disclose in Example 5 a silane coupling agent SH 6040 manufactured by Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. is added to the aromatic polyether amideimide to form the adhesive layer [0125-0127].
Tateoka et al. is silent on the exact formula of the silane coupling agent.
However, Tateoka et al. teach examples of the silane coupling agent includes 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane [0062], thereby lying within the claimed formula copied below:
PNG
media_image1.png
105
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, and R3 are alkoxy groups having one carbon, and R4 is an alkylene group having 3 carbon atoms . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silane compound taught by Tateoka et al. since Tateoka et al. teach both compounds can be used as a coupling agent.
Regarding claim 5, Tateoka et al. is silent on the weight reduction at 240° as recited in the instant claim. However, weight reduction is dependent on the components present. Tateoka et al. teach a substantially identical protective film. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the weight reduction and peel strength to be expected.
Regarding claim 7, Tateoka et al. disclose in Example 5 an adhesion film was formed as shown in Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
1172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein 12 is the adhesive layer, 11 is the support film, and 13 is a nonadhesive resin layer [0127], and thereby reading on the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed November 6, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kawai et al. (WO 01/035460) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tateoka et al. (US 20090091012 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner directs attention to the rejection for claim 1 in paragraph 11, wherein Tateoka et al. teach a film comprising the support film and adhesive layer as recited in the instant claim, and broadly teach a silane coupling agent in an amount of 0.1 to 50.0 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the thermoplastic resin, equivalent to 0.1 to 50 wt% with respect to an amount of the organic polymer and thereby overlapping the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0342. The examiner can normally be reached M F 8 - 5.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ANDREA WU/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763