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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. A preliminary amendment was filed on 10 August 2023 canceling claims 20 and 22-30. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 August 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10 August 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi (U.S. Pat. 9,190,309).
Regarding claim 11, Taniguchi discloses a wafer processing tape used for dicing of a semiconductor wafer and for die bonding of a semiconductor chip obtained by dicing, see col. 1, lines 7-13. The wafer processing tape can be used to bond a semiconductor chip to a lead frame for a die bonding process, see col. 1, lines 25-30 and col. 5, lines 24-30. The wafer tape includes notched parts arranged in an annular pattern at a position inward from the edge of the tacky film as described at col. 7, lines 26-30. The notches may have circular or tongue-shapes and may be staggered along two annular lines as shown in FIG. 13-14 and described at col. 8, lines 35-50. The shapes of the notches protrude towards the center of the adhesive disc, that is to say they have a convex arch shape towards the center of the dicing tape. See FIG. 14 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
834
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reads on incision patterns having a first incision pattern spaced apart along a concentric circle with a first radius and a second incision pattern spaced apart along a second concentric circle with a second radius greater than the first radius as claimed. The notches penetrate the adhesive layer but to not penetrate an attached release substrate, see col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 13.
The inner and outer concentric rings of notches read on adhesive force increasing patterns and crack preventing patterns as claimed. Taniguchi teaches that the notches increase the peeling strength between the wafer processing tape and the wafer ring, see abstract, thus reading on increasing the adhesive force. The notches also prevent from acting when the release substrate is peeled off during the use of the wafer processing tape, reading on crack preventing patterns as claimed. See col. 6, line 62 through col. 7, line 4.
Regarding claim 12, as can be seen in FIG. 14 reproduced above, the patterns are arranged alternate along the circumferential direction and overlap with each other in a radial pattern.
Regarding claim 13, as can be seen in FIG. 14 reproduced above, the patterns are partially overlap each other when viewed in a radial direction.
Regarding claim 16, each of the notches in the inner and outer concentric rings of Taniguchi have convex shapes as shown in FIG. 14 and described at col. 8, lines 35-50. Thus one set of notches has a first central portion with first and second end portions, and the other set of notches has a second central portion with third and fourth end portions as claimed.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-10, 14, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (U.S. Pat. 9,190,309) in view of Aoyama (U.S. Pat. 9,631,123).
Regarding claim 1, Taniguchi discloses a wafer processing tape used for dicing of a semiconductor wafer and for die bonding of a semiconductor chip obtained by dicing, see col. 1, lines 7-13. The wafer processing tape can be used to bond a semiconductor chip to a lead frame for a die bonding process, see col. 1, lines 25-30 and col. 5, lines 24-30. The wafer tape includes notched parts arranged in an annular pattern at a position inward from the edge of the tacky film as described at col. 7, lines 26-30. The notches may have circular or tongue-shapes and may be staggered along two annular lines as shown in FIG. 13-14 and described at col. 8, lines 35-50. The shapes of the notches protrude towards the center of the adhesive disc, that is to say they have a convex arch shape towards the center of the dicing tape. See FIG. 14 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
834
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reads on incision patterns having a first incision pattern spaced apart along a concentric circle with a first radius and a second incision pattern spaced apart along a second concentric circle with a second radius greater than the first radius as claimed. The notches penetrate the adhesive layer but to not penetrate an attached release substrate, see col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 13.
The shape of the inner notches reads on the claimed first incision patterns having a convex arch shape towards a center of the dicing tape as claimed.
Taniguchi also teaches S-shaped notches shown in FIG. 18 reproduced below which include a first convex arch shape portion facing the center of the tape and a second convex arch shape portion facing towards the outside of the tape.
PNG
media_image2.png
840
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Taniguchi does not teach the use of a second incision patterns having a convex arch shape towards an outside of the dicing tape as claimed.
Aoyama discloses an adhesive sheet used for dicing tape for fixing a semiconductor wafer to dice into individual chips, see col. 1, lines 11-17 and col. 3, lines 39-54. The adhesive sheet has a circular label part 13a having a shape corresponding to the shape of a ring frame for dicing and a peripheral part 13b outside of the circular label part. See col. 5, lines 54-61 and FIGS. 1A-1B. The adhesive film has through-holes 14 provided to penetrate the adhesive film which are provided radially from a place corresponding to the outer edge of the part 15 of the adhesive layer intended to be attached to an adherend. See col. 6, lines 20-29. The through-holes are provided at a portion corresponding to part 15 of the adhesive layer 12 intended to be attached to an adherend and inside the circular label part 13a. See col. 7, lines 6-10. The through-holes may be provided in a variety of shapes including U-shaped holes 143 as shown in FIG. 6 (reproduced below) and described at col. 7, lines 39-48. The U-shaped holes are oriented such that the convex side of the through-holes is directed to the outside of the circle of the label which makes it easy to discharge a void towards the outside when attaching the adhesive sheet, see col. 7, lines 48-65.
PNG
media_image3.png
564
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These U-shaped holes 143 read on the claimed second incision patterns having a convex arch shape toward an outside of the dicing tape as claimed. As can be seen in FIG. 6, they are arranged radially having a second radius as claimed.
Taniguchi and Aoyama are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each discloses semiconductor dicing tapes having through-holes arranged in an annular pattern centered on the middle of the dicing tape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have replaced the outer circle of arch-shaped notches of Taniguchi with the U-shaped notches of Aoyama in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include two concentric rings of incisions pointing in different orientations as the shape in Aoyama makes it possible to guide air towards a direction towards the outside of the adhesive layer which minimizes the possibility that air enters underneath the adhesive sheet and causing a void, see Aoyama at col. 7, lines 10-26. There is a reasonable expectation of success as Aoyama shows an embodiment with “S” shaped incisions which include convex shapes on each side, that is facing both towards the center and towards the outside of the dicing tape (see FIG. 18 reproduced above).
Regarding claim 2, the inner ∩-shaped incisions of Taniguchi each have first and second end portions at the respective ends of a first central portion as claimed. The outer U-shaped incisions of Aoyama each have third and fourth end portions at the respective ends of a second central portion as claimed. See above figures and discussion in regards to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the two sets of incisions shown in Taniguchi are concentric and have centerpoints of the arches of the inner set having a first radius and centerpoints of the arches of the outer set having a second radius larger than the first radius. See the two sets of arches shown in FIG. 13-14 and described at col. 8, lines 35-50. This reads on the first and second distance as claimed.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Taniguchi does not specify the difference between the first and second distance as claimed. However, Taniguchi does specify that the notched parts are arranged in an annual pattern approximately 5 mm from an edge of the tacky film, see col. 7, lines 26-30. This corresponds to the distance between the outer set of notches 62 and the circular line marked 5 as shown in FIG. 14. As can be visually seen in FIG. 14, the inner ring of notches 62 are spaced from the outer ring of notches 62 by about the same distance as the outer ring of notches 62 and the circular line 5. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the spacing difference between the concentric rings on which the notches are formed is about 5mm, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 5-7, the first set of incisions of Taniguchi are arranged offset yet overlapping from the second set of incisions as shown in FIG. 14.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Taniguchi teaches that the number of notched potions of the wafer dicing tape is not particularly limited, but the notches are favorably arranged at intervals of 2 to 3 degrees, see col. 6, lines 3-4. It would have been obvious to have arranged the notches to have a spacing distance between the inner set of notches to be the same or smaller than a length of each of the outer set of notches .
Regarding claim 9, as can be seen in the figures reproduced above, the notches of Taniguchi and those of Aoyama each have U-shapes which read on curved arcs as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Taniguchi teaches that a release substrate is provided over the adhesive layer, see col. 5, lines 31-48.
Regarding claim 15, Taniguchi teaches that the number of notched parts is not particularly limited but are favorably arranged at intervals of 2 to 3 degrees, see col. 6, lines 3-5. The circular adhesive film is pre-cut to a diameter of 320 mm, see col. 7, lines 6-14, and the outer notches are positioned 5 mm from the edge of the film, see col. 7, lines 25-30. The total circumference of the resulting 310 mm diameter ring of outer notches is thus 310 mm × π or approximately 974 mm. It would require 65 notches around such a circumference to each have a length of 15 mm including the spacing between the notches (and thus the length of each notch itself would be less than 15 mm). This is a reasonable number of notches to be formed. Thus it is reasonable to expect the length of the notches to be within the claimed range of 5-15 mm.
Regarding claim 17, Taniguchi is relied upon as described above to teach the limitations of claims 11 and 16. The inner set of notches has a convex arch shape towards the center of the dicing tape.
Substituting the outer set of notches of Taniguchi with those of Aoyama as described above in regards to claim 1 results in the outer set of notches having a convex arch shape towards an outside of the dicing tape as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Taniguchi and Aoyama are relied upon as described above in regards to claim 1. Taniguchi further teaches that the wafer processing tape is normally wound into a roll, see FIG. 1-2 and col. 5, lines 24-30. Aoyama also teaches that the adhesive sheet is wound into a roll, see abstract. Each reference teaches circular shaped adhesive sheets as shown above.
Taniguchi describes a tacky material layer formed on a base material film, see abstract.
The notches of the inner ring of Taniguchi read on the claimed first incision patterns spaced apart along a concentric circle having a first radius as claimed. The notches of the outer ring of Taniguchi read on the claimed second incision patterns spaced apart along a concentric circle having a second radius greater than the first radius as claimed. The shape of the inner notches reads on the claimed first incision patterns having a convex arch shape towards a center of the dicing tape as claimed.
The notches penetrate the adhesive layer but to not penetrate an attached release substrate, see col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 13.
These U-shaped holes 143 of Aoyama read on the claimed second incision patterns having a convex arch shape toward an outside of the dicing tape as claimed. As can be seen in FIG. 6, they are arranged radially having a second radius as claimed.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2020/261709 A1 and U.S. Pub. 2022/0348795 describe a longitudinal tape having two rows of slits on each side of the tape formed intermittedly along the longitudinal direction.
U.S. Pub. 2022/0340788 describes a manufacturing method of a half-cut double-sided tape which produces partial cuts into the tape which do not penetrate the tape.
U.S. Pub. 2015/0017374 and U.S. Pub. 2015/0017373 are from the same inventors as Aoyama (U.S. Pat. 9,631,123) and describe similar dicing tapes.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759