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 of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/25.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-8 as below:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method manufacturing as represented in claim 1 must be shown in form of manufacturing format (see suggested dwg below) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (Noted that pending submission Figs 1-8 as provided which is clearly directed to a product assembly not method). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.”
PNG
media_image1.png
572
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract is in claim form, applicant should replace the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The scope of the claims 1-7 does not appear to be directed to the making of a tape (as indicated in line 1 of claim 1) because the claim body already recites “providing a tape” which made scope of the unclear. Base on the body of the claim 1 it is clearly that the scope of the claims directed to the making of “a chip carrier device “instead of the tape. The Examiner presumes that the claims directed to the manufacturing of “component tape assembly” and the elected pending claims will be rejected accordingly. 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Since the scope of the claim directed to the making of “a tape” which appears to be unclear since the specification and or drawings directed to” a component tape assembly” 100 rather than “a tape “as represented in the preamble.
“the steps” (claim 1, line 1) lack proper antecedent basis. Therefore, the claimed
“A manufacturing method of tape comprising the steps of:” (see preamble line 1) should be updated to:
--“A method for manufacturing of a component tape assembly operatively associated with a die device, the method comprising steps of:” --, for clarity of the method invention base on Figs. 1-2.
whether or not “a tape” (claim 1, line 2) as same as that in line 1?
The phrase: “providing a tape including a plurality of substrate units, each of the plurality of substrate units includes a carrier, a circuit layer, an adhesive and a heat spreader, the circuit layer is located on the carrier, and the heat spreader is adhered on the carrier by the adhesive;” (claim 1, lines 2-5) appears to be structure limitations and should be rewritten to method limitations as following:
-- providing a tape including a plurality of substrate units, each of the plurality of substrate units includes a carrier, a circuit layer, an adhesive and a heat spreader;”--
“locating the circuit layer on the carrier and adhering the heat spreader on the carrier by the adhesive;” --, to reflect method limitations.
“providing a die device” (claim 1, line 6) should be changed to: --” providing the die device” --.
“performing a cutting and/or pressing process,” (claim 1, line 8) is unclear and should be updated to: -- “cutting “--, for clarity of the method step.
“are configured to press the tape” (claim 1, line 9) is vague and indefinite should be updated to: --“by pressing the tape” --, to reflect changes as suggested above in line 8.
“, the plurality of separation protrusions” (claim 1, line 10-11) should be: --, wherein the plurality of separation protrusions” --.
claim 2 directed to the associated entity of the die device (see lines 1-3) should be rewritten into method formats as following:
the phrase:
“wherein the die device further includes a punch-cutting portion, the plurality of punch- pressing elements are located outside the punch-cutting element,” (claim 2, lines 1-3) not a positive method limitation and should be updated as below:
--“wherein the providing the die device further comprises a punch-cutting portion, the plurality of punch- pressing elements are located outside the punch-cutting element; “--.
“he carrier includes a to-be-removed portion, the adhesive includes a first to- be-removed portion corresponding to the to-be-removed portion, and the heat spreader includes a second to-be-removed portion corresponding to the to-be-removed portion, the punch-cutting element in the cutting and/or pressing process is configured to cut and separate the to-be-removed portion from the carrier, cut and separate the first to-be-removed portion from the adhesive, and cut and separate the second to-be-removed portion from the heat spreader, the carrier includes an opening and a reserve portion located outside the opening, the adhesive includes a first opening and a first reserve portion located outside the first opening, and the heat spreader includes a second opening and a second reserve portion located outside the second opening after the cutting and/or pressing process, the opening of the carrier, the first opening of the adhesive and the second opening of the heat spreader are a hollow portion of each of the plurality of substrate units, the plurality of punch-pressing elements in the cutting and/or pressing process are configured to press the reserve portion of the carrier, the first reserve portion of the adhesive and the second reserve portion of the heat spreader to generate the plurality of separation protrusions on the second reserve portion, the plurality of separation protrusions are located outside the second opening of the heat spreader” (claim 2, lines 4-23) is/are awkwardly worded and should be further divided into multiple inventive method steps as so to reflect changes as suggested in claim 1 above.
“are located” (claim 5, line 2) is not positive method limitation and should be updated to method limitation.
“are formed” (claims 3-4, 7-8 line 2) is not positive method limitation. The use of (e.g., forming a plurality of restriction protrusion on the reserve portion of the carrier and inserting - - -) is suggested.
Same as claim 3 “are formed” occurrence in claims 4, 7-8, about line 2 is not positive method limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hsieh et al (JP 2016143880)
Hsieh et al discloses the claimed manufacturing method of tape comprising the steps of:
providing a tape 110 including a plurality of substrate units 111, each of the plurality of substrate units includes a carrier 111, a circuit layer 112, an adhesive 130 and a heat spreader 121 the circuit layer 112 is located on the carrier 111, and the heat spreader 121 is adhered on the carrier by the adhesive 130 (see discussion under the abstract and related embodiment of Fig. 3 and Fig 4B as shown below);
PNG
media_image2.png
158
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
providing a die device including a plurality of punch-pressing elements (does not further limit the claimed tape because it is outside element); and
performing a cutting and/or pressing process, the plurality of punch- pressing elements of the die device are configured to press the tape to generate a plurality of separation protrusions on the heat spreader, the plurality of separation protrusions protrude from a heat dissipation surface of the heat spreader appears to be met by the Hsieh as well since no further method limitation existing in the above (see 112 above).
Further, consider the phrase where” configured to press the tape to generate a plurality of separation protrusions on the heat spreader, the plurality of separation protrusions protrude from a heat dissipation surface of the heat spreader” since after “configured to” is considered to be optional /intended used not positive method claim formats.
Limitations of claims 2-8 as best understood are also met by the above since the claims directed to method and claims 2-8 directed to an associated die device which does not further limit the method as claimed (see also 112 section above).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al (TW1267178).
Shen et al discloses the claimed manufacturing method of tape comprising the steps of:
providing a tape 300 including a plurality of substrate units 315, each of the plurality of substrate units includes a carrier 320, a circuit layer 313, an adhesive 321and a heat spreader 350, the circuit layer 313 is located on the carrier 320, and the heat spreader is adhered on the carrier 310/320 by the adhesive 332 (see discussion under the abstract and related embodiment of Fig. 3 as shown below);
providing a die device including a plurality of punch-pressing elements (does not further limit the claimed tape because it is outside element); and
performing a cutting and/or pressing process, the plurality of punch- pressing elements of the die device are configured to press the tape to generate a plurality of separation protrusions on the heat spreader, the plurality of separation protrusions protrude from a heat dissipation surface of the heat spreader appears to be met by the Shen as well since no further method limitation existing in the above (see 112 above). Note that the recites” configured to press the tape to generate a plurality of separation protrusions on the heat spreader, the plurality of separation protrusions protrude from a heat dissipation surface of the heat spreader” since after “configured to” is considered to be optional /intended used not positive method claim formats.
PNG
media_image3.png
321
739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Limitations of claims 2-8 as best under stood appear to be met by the applied prior art set forth above (see 112 issues as set forth above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt