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 elects Group I, claims 1-9 drawn to a coating composition, with traverse.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (i.e., group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
The traversal is on the ground that the Restriction Requirement does not set forth an accurate basis for making the Restriction Requirement. The Restriction Requirement states that "Inventions IL and I. are related as process of making and product made." This is incorrect. The claims are directed to a "coating composition" and a "method of manufacturing a semiconductor package" that includes forming a wafer protective layer by coating the coating composition on the wafer. The claimed "coating composition" is not a "product made" by the process of making. Accordingly, the Restriction Requirement mischaracterizes the relationship between the claims and does not state an accurate basis for Restriction.
Examiner disagrees with assertion above. The product in claim 1 can be a single chip with the coating composition and the process in claim 10 has the process of getting a single chip with the coating composition by applying the coating on the whole wafer and dicing the wafer into multiple chips. Therefore, the Restriction Requirement does set forth an accurate basis for making the Restriction Requirement between "Inventions II and I”, wherein Inventions II and I related as process of making and product made. The restriction requirement has been maintained and made FINAL.
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, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (CN 114231110 A; hereinafter “Su”).
In re claim 1, Su discloses a coating composition for wafer protection (the coating composition is applied to protect an electronic device comprising a touch sensor; page 3, 6th paragraph),
the coating composition comprising (page 6, last paragraph):
a solvent (e.g., propylene glycol methyl ether acetate);
1 weight percent (wt %) to 40 wt % of a water-soluble polymer (e.g., 3% polymethyl ammonium acrylate); and
0.01 wt % to 30 wt % of a nano light-emitting filler (Su teaches 10% nano filler containing nanometer mica powder and aluminum oxide powder. Both aluminum oxide powder and mica powder have light-emitting properties).
In re claim 3, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nano light-emitting filler includes Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Ru, Co, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, B, Al (e.g., aluminum oxide; page 7, last paragraph), Ga, In, Si, Ge, Sn, As, Bi, La, Ce, Pr, Gd, Yb, Tb, Lu, Sm, or combinations thereof.
In re claim 4, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 3, wherein the nano light-emitting filler further includes C, N, O (e.g., aluminum oxide; page 7, last paragraph), P, S, F, Cl, Br, Se, Te, or combinations thereof.
In re claim 6, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein a size of the nano light-emitting filler is 1 nm to 999 nm (“The particle size of the filler can be nanometer level, so as to increase the contact area between each other, so that the protective coating can form uniform protective layer on the surface grid”; page 4, 3rd 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 114456681 A; hereinafter “Zhang”).
In re claim 1, Zhang discloses a coating composition for wafer protection (the coating composition protects a solar photovoltaic back plate; page 2, Contents of the Invention),
the coating composition comprising (pages 2-3):
a solvent (e.g., ethanol diluent; page 3, 11th paragraph);
1 weight percent (wt %) to 40 wt % of a water-soluble polymer (e.g., an auxiliary agent, polyvinyl alcohol as 1 to 5 parts; see claim 1 of Zhang. Note, polyvinyl alcohol is water-soluble polymer, as Applicant also discloses in [0028] of the PGPUB. Based on the mass parts given for all the raw materials, in page 2, auxiliary agent has a range of wt% from 0.158 to 2.18); and
0.01 wt % to 30 wt % of a nano light-emitting filler (e.g., 1 ~ 50 parts of liquid metal nano-particles in combination with 30 to 100 parts carbon nano filler. Carbon nano filler has good radiating performance when combined with the liquid metal as described in the last paragraph of page 4. Based on the mass parts given for all the raw materials, in page 2, liquid metal in combination with carbon nano filler has a range of wt%, from 4.9 wt% to 65.6 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang and form the coating with the claimed wt% for the water-soluble polymer and nano light-emitting filler to improve the radiating capability of the photovoltaic cell in long time and high temperature environment, further improving the service life of the energy conversion power and the solar photovoltaic system (page 2, 5th paragraph).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
In re claim 2, Zhang discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the water-soluble polymer includes polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (page 3, last paragraph), polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), cellulose, polyoxazoline, polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyacrylamide, or combinations thereof.
In re claim 3, Zhang discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nano light-emitting filler includes Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Ru, Co, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, B, Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, Sn, As, Bi, La, Ce, Pr, Gd, Yb, Tb, Lu, Sm, or combinations thereof (page 3, 6th paragraph: “the liquid metal is metal gallium, tin, indium, bismuth, gallium aluminium alloy, gallium bismuth alloy, gallium tin alloy, gallium indium alloy, tin-bismuth alloy in the one kind of or more”).
In re claim 4, Zhang discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 3, wherein the nano light-emitting filler further includes C (carbon nano filler; page 3, 2nd paragraph), N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, Se, Te, or combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D’amino et al. (TW I793131 B; hereinafter “D’amino”).
In re claim 5, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1 outlined above.
Su does not expressly disclose wherein the nano light-emitting filler phosphor includes a phosphor or quantum dots.
In the same field of endeavor, D’amino discloses wherein the nano light-emitting filler includes a phosphor or quantum dots (“According to one embodiment, said nanoparticles 3 are nanoparticles comprising a hygroscopic material, such as a phosphor material or a scintillator material.” “According to one embodiment, examples of phosphor nanoparticles include, but are not limited to: - blue phosphors”; see the attached English translation).
It 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 to employ the teachings of D’amino into the coating of Su. One would have been motivated to do so as D’amino teaches the luminescent particle has one or more of the following advantages: different particles can be coated in the same luminescent particle, and its characteristics can be coupled to obtain different properties; it can prevent the reduction of the characteristics of the coated nanoparticles; Change and degrade the stability of the attack of substances (such as water and oxygen or other harmful compounds); improve the scattering ability of the light source and the light generated by the excitation of the luminescent particles, enhance its photoluminescence quantum yield, enhance Resistance to photobleaching and increased resistance to luminous flux.
In re claim 7, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1 outlined above.
Su does not expressly disclose wherein the nano light-emitting filler has an excitation wavelength in the ultraviolet range, and emits light having an emission wavelength in the visible light range when light in the ultraviolet range is applied.
D’amino discloses wherein the nano light-emitting filler has an excitation wavelength in the ultraviolet range, and emits light having an emission wavelength in the visible light range when light in the ultraviolet range is applied (“According to one embodiment, the light illumination is provided by blue, green, red or ultraviolet light sources,” and “According to one embodiment, the luminescent material 7 emits green light, and its emission peak has a wavelength between 500 nm and 565 nm, more preferably between 510 nm and 545 nm.”; see the attached English translation).
It 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 to employ the teachings of D’amino into the coating of Su. One would have been motivated to do so as D’amino teaches the luminescent particle has one or more of the following advantages: different particles can be coated in the same luminescent particle, and its characteristics can be coupled to obtain different properties; it can prevent the reduction of the characteristics of the coated nanoparticles; Change and degrade the stability of the attack of substances (such as water and oxygen or other harmful compounds); improve the scattering ability of the light source and the light generated by the excitation of the luminescent particles, enhance its photoluminescence quantum yield, enhance Resistance to photobleaching and increased resistance to luminous flux.
In re claim 8, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1 outlined above.
Su does not expressly disclose wherein the nano light-emitting filler has an excitation wavelength of 200 nm to 450 nm and an emission wavelength of 390 nm to 650 nm.
D’amino discloses wherein the nano light-emitting filler has an excitation wavelength of 200 nm to 450 nm (“According to one embodiment, the light source 6111 is an LED with a wavelength range from 200 nm to 400 nm for UV”) and an emission wavelength of 390 nm to 650 nm (and “According to one embodiment, the luminescent material 7 emits green light, and its emission peak has a wavelength between 500 nm and 565 nm, more preferably between 510 nm and 545 nm.”; see the attached English translation).
It 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 to employ the teachings of D’amino into the coating of Su. One would have been motivated to do so as D’amino teaches the luminescent particle has one or more of the following advantages: different particles can be coated in the same luminescent particle, and its characteristics can be coupled to obtain different properties; it can prevent the reduction of the characteristics of the coated nanoparticles; Change and degrade the stability of the attack of substances (such as water and oxygen or other harmful compounds); improve the scattering ability of the light source and the light generated by the excitation of the luminescent particles, enhance its photoluminescence quantum yield, enhance Resistance to photobleaching and increased resistance to luminous flux.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 5068133 A; hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
In re claim 9, Su discloses the coating composition as claimed in claim 1 outlined above.
Su further discloses the filler can be used for adjusting the viscosity of the protective coating, improving the wear resistance and corrosion resistance of the protective layer, improving the performance of the protective layer.
However, Su does not expressly wherein the coating composition for wafer protection has a viscosity of 10 cP to 500 cP.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto discloses a coating composition having a viscosity between 50 to 500 cps (C. 7, 3rd paragraph).
It 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 to employ the teachings Matsumoto into the coating of Su to have a coating structure having excellent in smoothness, uniformity and stability (C. 1, 1st paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893