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
Claims 16-17 and 23-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making a semiconductor, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims a composition (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 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.
Applicant defines storage modulus as a G1 and G2. Since DMA method is mention along with G2/G1 ratio, Examiner assumes that G2 should be defined as a loss modulus. In addition, instant Specification discloses both storage and loss modules (see printed publication at 0408).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai et al (JP 2017219850), cited in IDS.
Anzai teaches a resin composition comprising a polyamide acid salt and a solvent (see Chapter “Resin composition”) and polar organic solvent (see Chapter “Other components”).
Anzai teaches a photosensitive film for producing a cured film having excellent adhesion to a polybenzoxazole resin, a Si substrate, and a Cu substrate, high resolution and heat resistance, and a side surface of an opening having a forward taper type.
The semiconductor device has a cured relief pattern having a surface protective film, an interlayer insulating film, an insulating film for rewiring, a protective film for a flip chip device, or a bump structure by the method for producing a cured relief pattern described above. It can be formed as a protective film of a semiconductor device and can be manufactured by combining a method for manufacturing a cured relief pattern and a known method for manufacturing a semiconductor device (see Chapter Semiconductor device).
Note that Anzai does not teach all steps used for preparation of a semiconductor device, as they recited in claim 1.
However, note that independent claim 1 does not drawn to a to a method of semiconductor device preparation, but rather to a resin composition.
The position is taken that since Applicant and Anzai disclose all the elements of a semiconductor device (two substrates, insulation films, a resin and a solvent), the polyamide acid resin above is suitable for preparation of the semiconductor device as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect that Anzai’s polyamide acid resin and solvent are suitable for semiconductor device, since the Reference and Applicant teach the same elements of resin composition and resulting semiconductor device.
Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomohito et al (TW 202003637), cited in IDS.
Anzai fails to teach a polishing of a cured product, chemical structures of polyimide, solvent and photosensitive agent.
Tomohito discloses a semiconductor device including a substrate as a semiconductor element and a cured film of resin formed on the substrate by cured film manufacturing method. The semiconductor device can be formed as a surface protective film, an interlayer insulating film, an insulating film for redistribution, a protective film for a flip-chip device, or a semiconductor having a bump structure by forming the cured film formed by the above-mentioned manufacturing method of the cured film. The protective film of the device is manufactured in combination with known semiconductor device manufacturing methods (see Chapter Semiconductor device).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) , 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301, see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Tomohiro’s resin composition in Anzai’s applications, since it is a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Tomohito teaches that n-plane uniformity after grinding a cured resin coating film formed on a silicon wafer substrate having a copper pattern is obtained by using a chemical mechanical polishing device.
In reference to claims 3-6, Tomohiro discloses the resin (A) is selected from the following general formula (1): [Chem 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
253
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where X1 is represented by the following radicals:
PNG
media_image2.png
140
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Y 1 is a divalent organic group, n 1 is an integer of 2 to 150, and R 1 and R 2 are each independently a hydrogen atom, or the following general formula (1a):
[Chem 2]
PNG
media_image3.png
151
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(In the formula, R3 , R4 and R5 are each independently a hydrogen atom or an organic group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, and m 1 is an integer of 2 to 10).
In reference to claims 7-8 and 12, Tomohito teaches such solvent as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, which used in a range of, for example, 30 to 1500 parts by mass (see Chapter Other ingredients). In addition, the reference teaches photopolymerization initiator (C ) and photopolymerizable compound (D).
Regarding claims 9-11 and 14-15, Tomohito fails to teach thermal weight loss, glass transition range, tensile modulus, thermal expansion coefficient and storage modulus values.
However, both Tomohito and Applicant use the same or similar polyimide precursor. In particular, Applicant uses a polyimide based on 2,2'-dimethyl -4,4'-diaminobiphenyl and 4,4'-oxydiphthalic dianhydride (ODPA) in Examples. In turn, Tomohito uses ODPA in Examples (see Production Example 1) and listed 2,2'-dimethyl -4,4'-diaminobiphenyl as one of preferred diamines.
The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art, does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to expect that Tomohito’s and Applicant’s polyimide have the same properties, since they possess the same or analogous chemical structures.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai in view of Tomohito et al as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Takemura et al (US 20170298186).
Anzai and Tomohito fail to teach a negative or positive -type photosensitive resin.
Takemura teaches polyimide precursor polymer, a negative photosensitive resin composition and a positive photosensitive resin composition using the polyimide precursor polymer as its base resin and a patterning process using the negative photosensitive resin composition or the positive photosensitive resin composition (see 0001).
Takemura discloses that in the pattern formation, a mask for negative pattern or positive pattern was appropriately used according to the used photosensitive resin compositions . The mask had a pattern capable of forming 20 um holes (see 0344)
Such formed pattern and top coat have excellent insulating property and excellent adhesiveness to a metal layer of, for example, Cu of a wiring and a circuit to be coated, a metal electrode on a substrate , and an insulating substrate such as SiN substrate with a wiring and a circuit to be coated, and can significantly improve resolution capacity for forming a fine pattern with an appropriate mechanical strength as a top coat (see 0276).
Takemura further discloses the negative photosensitive resin composition and the positive photosensitive resin composition of the present invention , a pattern can be formed by a well - known lithography technology (see 0268).
Takemura teaches that the polyimide precursor can by reaction of ODPA and an aromatic diamine (see 0280).
Thus, Tomohito’s polyimide precursor is suitable for Takemura’s applications.
The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art, does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Tomohito’s composition in Takemura’s applications, since they used polyimide precursor with the same or analogous structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765