DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on April 7, 2026 has been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims #1-13, 21 in the reply filed on February 19, 2026 have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 19 and 20 remain indicated as being allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0139799 A1), hereafter “Jung”, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (JP 2018-44148), as cited in the IDS and improved machine translation previously provided, hereafter “Yamashita”.
As to claim 1, Jung teaches:
A film substrate CT+110. See Jung, FIG. 4.
A wiring layer 120 on the film substrate.
A semiconductor chip 100/101 on the wiring layer and electrically connected to the wiring layer.
Wherein the film substrate comprises a first layer 110.
Wherein the first layer is an insulating layer having the wiring layer thereon. Jung teaches an insulating material for the first layer. Id. at ¶ [0047].
Wherein the film substrate further comprises a second layer 151.
Wherein the second layer is in direct contact with a bottom of the first layer. Id. at FIG. 4.
Wherein the second layer is configured to be peeled off of the first layer. Jung teaches the second layer 151 is an adhesive or tape. Id. at ¶ [0057].
However, Jung does not teach the second layer comprises gas.
On the other hand, Yamashita teaches an adhesive comprising a first side-chain crystalline polymer and foaming agent, wherein the foaming agent comprises a gas or nitrogen gas. See Yamashita, Abstract, ¶¶ [0019], [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the adhesive comprising gas as taught by Yamashita for the adhesive layer as taught by Jung, in order to yield the predictable benefit of reducing residue after peeling. Id. at ¶ [0006]. Furthermore, the adhesive layer as taught by the combination of Jung and Yamashita would continue to function as intended.
As to claim 2, Yamashita teaches a foaming property. Id. at ¶ [0026]. The Examiner notes that “when exposed to light” is not a structural limitation. Jung and Yamashita teaches the structure as claimed.
As to claim 3, Yamashita teaches nitrogen gas, an inert gas. Id. at ¶ [0029].
As to claim 4, the Examiner notes the recited limitations are not structural limitations. Jung and Yamashita teaches the structure as claimed.
As to claim 5, Yamashita teaches heating the adhesive layer to a temperature equal to or greater than a foaming temperature to reduce cohesive force and enable removing the adhesive layer. Id. at 7. The Examiner notes the limitation “when the gas foams, the second layer is configured to be peeled off of the first layer” is not claiming additional structure beyond the second layer merely being an adhesive layer and having a gas component.
As to claim 6, Jung teaches the second layer 151 is an adhesive layer, which is inherently capable of being peeled off of the first layer when the semiconductor package is connected to an external device. The Examiner notes the limitation “configured to be peeled off of the first layer when the semiconductor package is connected to an external device” is not claiming additional structure beyond the second layer merely being an adhesive layer.
As to claim 7, neither Jung nor Yamashita specifies an exact thickness of the first layer.
On the other hand, if the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777.
As to claim 10, Jung teaches a fourth layer 160 attached to a bottom of the second layer 151.
As to claim 11, Jung teaches the second layer 151 comprises adhesive material. See Jung, ¶ [0057].
As to claim 12, neither Jung nor Yamashita teaches the gas comprises at least 50% of a volume of the second layer.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an adhesive with a relevant gas percentage by volume, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. As a matter of design choice, there are a limited number of materials that can provide the gas percentage.
As to claim 13, Jung teaches the semiconductor package is connected to a display panel and is configured to convert and relay signals for controlling the display panel. See Jung, ¶¶ [0004], [0024]-[0036], FIG. 1.
As to claim 21, Jung teaches:
A film substrate CT+110. Id. at FIG. 4.
A wiring layer 120 on the film substrate.
A semiconductor chip 100/101 on the wiring layer and electrically connected to the wiring layer.
Wherein the film substrate comprises an insulating first layer 110 that has no conductive circuitry extending therethrough.
Wherein the film substrate further comprises a second layer 151.
Wherein the second layer is on a bottom of the insulating first layer. Id. at FIG. 4.
Wherein the second layer is configured to be peeled off of the insulating first layer. Jung teaches the second layer 151 is an adhesive or tape. Id. at ¶ [0057].
However, Jung does not teach the second layer comprises gas.
On the other hand, Yamashita teaches an adhesive comprising a first side-chain crystalline polymer and foaming agent, wherein the foaming agent comprises a gas or nitrogen gas. See Yamashita, Abstract, ¶¶ [0019], [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the adhesive comprising gas as taught by Yamashita for the adhesive layer as taught by Jung, in order to yield the predictable benefit of reducing residue after peeling. Id. at ¶ [0006]. Furthermore, the adhesive layer as taught by the combination of Jung and Yamashita would continue to function as intended.
Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 8, Jung’s third layer 153, an adhesive, is not attached to a bottom of the second layer 151 wherein the Examiner has interpreted ‘attach/attached’ as requiring contact.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 19 and 20 are indicated as being allowable because Jung’s third layer 153, an adhesive, is not attached to a bottom of the second layer 151 wherein the Examiner has interpreted ‘attach/attached’ as requiring contact.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights