Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/117,869

MOLDING APPARATUS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 06, 2023
Examiner
CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 940 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
988
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 940 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Invention I in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/6/2025. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: release film supply mechanism configured to supply a release film on the seating surface of the lower mold in claim 1, upper release film supply mechanism configured to supply an upper release film on a suction surface of the upper mold facing the seating surface in claim 7, release film supply mechanism configured to supply a release film on the seating surface of the first mold in claim 11, and upper release film supply mechanism configured to supply a second release film on a suction surface of the second mold facing the seating surface. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara (US6511620B1) in view of Morita (US2007/0216021A1). Kawahara discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 7-15 as one embodiment and 16-23 as another embodiment; limitations not disclosed by Kawahara are crossed out, below): Claim 1. A molding apparatus for a semiconductor package, comprising: a lower mold (104, Fig. 7A; 204, Fig. 16) comprising: a seating surface (Fig. 7A: upper surface of lower mold 104; Fig. 16: 204a and 204b) on which at least one substrate (152 in Fig. 7A; 258 in Fig. 16) is configured to be seated; at least one substrate suction groove (127 in Fig. 9B; 252 in Fig. 16) extending in at least one direction in the seating surface of the lower mold; first vacuum holes (124 in Fig. 9A and 9B; 250 in Fig. 16) extending through the lower mold such as to be in communication with the at least one substrate suction groove and in which at least a partial vacuum is configured to be formed; and second vacuum holes (Fig. 7A: holes at bottom of grooves 134a-134d and 121; Fig. 16: holes at bottom of grooves 244a-244d and 238) extending through the lower mold such as to be opened through the seating surface and in which at least a partial vacuum is configured to be formed; an upper mold (102, Fig. 7A; 202 in Fig. 16) positioned above the lower mold and configured to be clamped with the lower mold to form a molding space (158 in Fig. 12; 264 in Fig. 22) configured to mold at least one semiconductor chip on the at least one substrate; and the release film having through holes therein, wherein the through holes of the release film disposed on the seating surface are configured to be in communication with the at least one substrate suction groove, 1 wherein the release film is configured to be adhered on the seating surface by suctioning air from the second vacuum holes (see col. 9, lns. 30-38; see col. 13, lns. 11-33), and wherein the at least one substrate is configured to be adhered on the release film by suctioning air from the first vacuum holes through the through holes of the release film (see col. 9, lns. 39-48; see col. 13, lns. 43-53). Claim 2. The molding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower mold further comprises: at least one film suction groove (134a-134d and 121 in Fig. 7A; 244a-244d, 238 in Fig. 16) extending in at least one direction in the seating surface of the lower mold, the at least one film suction groove being in communication with at least one of the second vacuum holes. Claim 3. The molding apparatus of claim 2, wherein a length of the at least one substrate suction groove is greater than a length of the at least one film suction groove. In the left-to-right direction of Fig. 7A, substrate suction groove 127 (refer to Fig. 9B) is longer than grooves 134a-134d and 121 in the same direction. In the left-to-right direction of Fig. 16, substrate groove 252 is longer than grooves 244a-244d, 238. Claim 4. The molding apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one film suction groove (121 of Fig. 7A; 238 of Fig. 16) is located more inward than the at least one substrate suction groove with respect to the seating surface of the lower mold. Claim 5. The molding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one substrate suction groove extends in a first direction, and the through holes are spaced apart from each other in the first direction (see footnote 1). Claim 6. The molding apparatus of claim 5, Claim 7. The molding apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: Claim 8. The molding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one substrate comprises at least one sealing material passage hole that extends in one or more directions and penetrates through the at least one substrate2, and wherein the lower mold further comprises at least one sealing material accommodating line (122, Fig. 7A) that extends in the seating surface to correspond to the at least one sealing material passage hole (see footnote 2). Claim 9. The molding apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a first vacuum pump (vacuum sources; see col. 8, lns. 13-17; see col. 12, lns. 40-50) configured to form the at least the partial vacuum in the first vacuum holes; and a second vacuum pump (vacuum sources; see col. 8, lns. 18-35; see col. 12, lns. 50-57) configured to form the at least the partial vacuum in the second vacuum holes. Claim 10. The molding apparatus of claim 1, wherein a spacing distance between the first vacuum holes is smaller than a spacing distance between the through holes (see footnote 1). Claim 11. A molding apparatus for a semiconductor package, comprising: a first mold (104, Fig. 7A; 204, Fig. 16) comprising a seating surface (upper surface of 104 in Fig. 7A; upper surface of 204 in Fig. 16) on which at least one substrate is configured to be seated; a second mold (102 in Fig. 7A; 202 in Fig. 16) facing the first mold and configured to be clamped with the first mold to form a molding space (158 in Fig. 12; 264 in Fig. 22) configured to mold at least one semiconductor chip on the at least one substrate; the release film having through holes that are spaced apart in the first direction (see footnote 1); a first adhesion support mechanism comprising: at least one first air suction line (127 in Fig. 9B; 252 in Fig. 16) extending in the first direction in the seating surface of the first mold; first vacuum holes (124 in Fig. 9A and 9B; 250 in Fig. 16) extending through the first mold such as to be in communication with the at least one first air suction line; and a vacuum pump (vacuum sources; see col. 8, lns. 13-17; see col. 12, lns. 40-50) configured to form at least a partial vacuum in the first vacuum holes, wherein the first adhesion support mechanism is configured to adhere the at least one substrate on the release film by suctioning air from the first vacuum holes through the through holes that are in communication with the at least one first air suction line (see col. 9, lns. 39-48; see col. 13, lns. 43-53); and a second adhesion support mechanism comprising: second vacuum holes (Fig. 7A: holes at bottom of grooves 134a-134d and 121; Fig. 16: holes at bottom of grooves 244a-244d and 238) extending through the first mold such as to be opened through the seating surface of the first mold; and a second vacuum pump (vacuum sources; see col. 8, lns. 18-35; see col. 12, lns. 50-57) configured to form at least a partial vacuum in the second vacuum holes, wherein the second adhesion support mechanism is configured to adhere the release film on the seating surface (see col. 9, lns. 30-38; see col. 13, lns. 11-33). Claim 12. The molding apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second adhesion support mechanism further comprises at least one second air suction line (134a-134d and 121 in Fig. 7A; 244a-244d, 238 in Fig. 16) extending in the seating surface of the first mold, the at least one second air suction line being in communication with at least one of the second vacuum holes. Claim 13. The molding apparatus of claim 11, Claim 14. The molding apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: Claim 15. The molding apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one substrate comprises at least one sealing material passage hole that extends in at least one direction and penetrates through the at least one substrate (see footnote 2), and wherein the first mold further comprises at least one sealing material accommodating line (122, Fig. 7A) that extends in the seating surface to correspond to the at least one sealing material passage hole. Kawahara discloses the claimed apparatus, except for the claimed release film supply mechanisms. However, such mechanisms are conventional in the art. Morita discloses an apparatus similar to that of Kawahara, wherein upper and lower release films 40a, 40b are supplied by means of release film supply mechanisms comprising a feeding roller 42a, 42b and winding roller 44a, 44b. See Fig. 1. Kawahara does not specify how the release films are provided. In view of the teachings of Morita, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Kawahara to include upper and lower release film supply mechanisms as taught by Morita, in order to provide a simple way to provide new release film with each molding batch. Regarding the claimed pumps, Kawahara specifically mentions plural, independently-controllable vacuum sources (see cited sections above). If Applicant disagrees separate pumps are provided, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have, nevertheless, found such limitations obvious, as providing multiple pumps to implement the independently-controllable functionality mentioned by Kawahara would have required merely routine knowledge in the art, and would have had predictable effects. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 1 The language in italics defines structural features of the release film, but does not further limit the structure of the apparatus; the apparatus is capable of use with such a release film 2 The language in italics defines structural features of the substrate, but does not further limit the structure of the apparatus; the apparatus is capable of use with such a substrate.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550268
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CIRCUIT WIRING BY THREE-DIMENSIONAL ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528254
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A 3D ELECTROMECHANICAL COMPONENT HAVING AT LEAST ONE EMBEDDED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12506458
PACKAGING MODULE AND PACKAGING METHOD OF BAW RESONATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12501551
Method for Embedding a Component in a Printed Circuit Board
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12500494
METHOD FOR HARDENING A BRIDGE ASSEMBLY OF A ROTATIONAL BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+25.4%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 940 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month