DETAILED ACTION
Interview Summary
As summarized in the Applicant Initiated Interview Summary mailed on 3/31/2026, the previous Office Action mailed 3/11/2026 is hereby vacated in favor of the instant Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Reference character “2” has been used to designate both die attach film piece and bonding agent layer.
Reference characters "4" and "5" have both been used to designate semiconductor chip.
Reference characters “Ra1” and “Ra2” are not mentioned in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: arithmetic average roughness Ra1 (line 4) vs Ra1 (line 6) -> arithmetic average roughness (Ra1), /OR/ arithmetic average roughness Ra1.
Claim 2: labels (A), (B), (C), (D) are not necessary as the abbrev. are not used elsewhere in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are 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 6 recites multiple instances for "a thermally cured product of a bonding agent" in lines 2-3 and lines 4-5. There is confusion as to whether they are the same or different elements.
Claim 7 recites multiple instances for "a semiconductor chip" and “a bonding agent layer” in lines 10-11. There is confusion as to whether they are the same or different elements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al. (US 2010/0093154 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Amano”, IDS reference) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2010/0099240 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Watanabe”).
Amano teaches, in claim 1, a dicing die attach film, comprising:
a dicing film (1); and
a die attach film (3) laminated on the dicing film,
While Amano is not specific to an arithmetic average roughness Ra1 of from 0.05 to 2.50 µm at a surface in contact with the dicing film; wherein a value of ratio of Ra1 to an arithmetic average roughness Ra2 at a surface that is of the die attach film and is opposite to the surface in contact with the dicing film is from 1.05 to 28; and wherein the arithmetic average roughness Ra2 is 0.03 µm or more and 2.00 µm or less,
Amano teaches that by adjusting the arithmetic mean roughness of the of the pressure-sensitive layer (2) or the die bond layers (3) the adhesion and peeling of the semiconductor chip from a pickup step is controlled ([0045-0046]). And Watanabe further teaches that surface roughness has a direct affect to separation in dicing and die bonding ([0161]). Thus, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (surface roughness affecting separation), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges (Ra1 and Ra2) by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arithmetic average roughness Ra1 and Ra2 as taught by Amano and Watanabe to maintain optimum separation and picking (Amano, [0018]).
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches, in claim 2,. Amano further teaches wherein the die attach film comprises: an epoxy resin (A), an epoxy resin curing agent (B), a polymer component (C), and an inorganic filler (D), and wherein the die attach film is thermally cured to give a cured body having a thermal conductivity of 1.0 W/m.Math.K or more.([0021] percentage of inorganic fillers, [0074], [0084-0096], in paragraph [0019], applicant discloses that the thermal conductivity is higher based on increasing the ratio of the inorganic fillers, thus Amano meets this limitation because the fillers range from 20 to 80 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of an organic resin composition)
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches, claim 3. Amano teaches the die attach film as detailed in claim 1, above. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches , in claim 4, wherein the dicing film is energy ray-curable. ([0073], Amano)
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches, in claim 5, comprising leveling a surface of the die attach film by using a pressure roll to create a surface state satisfying Ra1 and Ra2. ([0105], Amano Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.)
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches, in claim 6, a semiconductor package, comprising: (figures 1-5; [0109-0110], Amano)
a semiconductor chip (5) and a circuit board which are bonded to each other with a thermally cured product ([0111]) of a bonding agent; ([0109-0110], Amano)
and/or semiconductor chips (5) which are bonded to each other with a thermally cured product of a bonding agent (3a), wherein the bonding agent (3a’) is derived from the die attach film (3) of the dicing die attach film (1) (figures 1-5; [0109-0110], Amano)
Amano in view of Watanabe teaches , in claim 7, a method of producing a semiconductor package, comprising the steps of: (figures 1-5; [0103-0114], Amano)
a first step of thermocompression bonding the dicing die attach film (1) to a back surface of a semiconductor wafer (4) where at least one semiconductor circuit is formed on a surface so that the die attach film (1) is in contact with the back surface of the semiconductor wafer (4); (figures 1-5; [0111] thermosetting type die-bonding film, Amano)
a second step of integrally dicing the semiconductor wafer (4) and the die attach film (3) to obtain a semiconductor chip (5) with a bonding agent layer (3) on the dicing film (1), the semiconductor chip (5) with a bonding agent layer including a piece of the die attach film and (3a) a semiconductor chip (5) (figures 1-5; [0106], Amano)
a third step of removing the semiconductor chip (5) with a bonding agent layer from the dicing film (1) and thermocompression bonding the semiconductor chip (5) with a bonding agent layer and a circuit board via the bonding agent layer (figures 1-5; [0107], Amano); and
a fourth step of thermally curing the bonding agent layer (figures 1-5; [0109], [0111], Amano).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant raises issue as to whether Amano alone or in combination with Watanabe suggests wherein the arithmetic average roughness values and ratios.
The Applicant’s desired outcome is to solve the problem of pickup failure even when a pickup collet stores heat at the pickup step during production of the a semiconductor device, noting the importance of the arithmetic average roughness values and ratios, as the applicant describes, the continuous pickup property by controlling the surface roughness of a bonding surface between the die attach film and a dicing film and the surface roughness of a bonding surface between the die attach film and a semiconductor wafer it’s less likely to cause any pick up failure can be obtained (see [0006-0008], in applicant’s disclosure).
Under Obvious of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions (MPEP 2144.05), in order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail.
In Amano’s teaching of Ra values correlation to peeling in [0045-0046] and Watanabe’s teaching of surface roughness effects on separation (figures 1a and 1b; [0159-0167], [0190], Watanabe). In combination, Amano and Watanabe teaches the result effective variable of surface roughness to the desirable result of separation.
The examiner concludes that based on the teachings of Amano in view of Watanabe, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (surface roughness affecting separation), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges (Ra1 and Ra2) by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights