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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 01/12/2026, in which claims 1, 4, 9-12, 14 were amended, claims 2, 5-6, 13, 15 were cancelled, claims 16-20 were added, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation “the phosphate cements comprise zinc phosphate cements and magnesium phosphate cements.” However, Applicant’s specification only discloses “phosphate cement like zinc phosphate cement or, preferably, magnesium phosphate cement” and does not provide any description of a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement comprising both zinc phosphate cements and magnesium phosphate cements as claimed. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 18 was not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
For the purpose of this Action, the limitation of claim 18 will be interpreted and examined as -- the phosphate cements comprise zinc phosphate cements or magnesium phosphate cements.--
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, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eisele et al. (US Pub. 20170133291).
Regarding claim 11, Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035] an encapsulated semiconductor die [10] or an encapsulated semiconductor package [10].
It is noted that the limitation “prepared by a process according to claim 1” directs to a product-by-process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 12, Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, paragraph [0016]-[0035]
an encapsulated semiconductor die [10] comprising a bare semiconductor die [20] and an encapsulation of a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition [30], wherein the hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition is based on a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements [magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements][paragraph [0019]-[0027]].
Regarding claim 16, Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, paragraph [0016]-[0035]
an encapsulated semiconductor die [10] comprising at least 2 bare semiconductor dies [20][“one or more semiconductor component(s) (20)”] and an encapsulation of a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition [30], wherein the hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition is based on a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements [magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements][paragraph [0016], paragraph [0020]].
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Eisele et al. (US Pub. 20170133291).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0026] wherein the hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition [30] consists of 2 to 99.5 wt.- % of hydraulic hardened inorganic cement and 0.5 to 98 wt% of one or more further constituents [“Examples of ingredients the encapsulating compound (30) can comprise aside from the cured inorganic cement include aluminum nitride particles, boron nitride particles, aluminum oxide particles and/or silicon nitride particles at a total volume fraction of, for example, 25 to 90% by volume, relative to the volume of the encapsulating compound (30)”.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Eisele et al. to provide the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinnusamy (US Pub. 20170032981) in view of Eisele et al. (US Pub. 20170133291).
Regarding claim 1, Chinnusamy discloses in Fig. 1j-1m a process for manufacturing of encapsulated semiconductor dies and/or of encapsulated semiconductor packages or for manufacturing of an encapsulation of semiconductor dies and/or of semiconductor packages comprising steps:
(1) assembling a multitude of bare semiconductor dies [104] on a temporary carrier [120][Fig. 1j], and
(2) encapsulating the assembled bare semiconductor dies [104], wherein an encapsulation agent [132] is applied in step (2) [Fig. 1k].
(3) removing the temporary carrier [120][Fig. 1l], and
(4) singulating the encapsulated semiconductor dies and/or encapsulated semiconductor packages [104][Fig. 1m].
Chinnusamy fails to disclose
wherein the encapsulation agent is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation;
the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent, and
the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements.
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
wherein the encapsulation agent [30] is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation;
the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent [paragraph [0019]-[0026]], and
the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements [magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eisele et al. into the method of Chinnusamy to include wherein the encapsulation agent is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation; the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent, and the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chinnusamy in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable encapsulant having improved encapsulation, improved heat dissipation, and/or improved tensile strength and thermal fatigue resistance [paragraph [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0031] of Eisele et al.].
Regarding claim 3, Chinnusamy discloses in Fig. 1f wherein the bare semiconductor dies [104] are assembled so as to have a distance [W1] between themselves, wherein the distance [W1] defines space to be filled with the encapsulation agent [132] during step (2).
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation.
Consequently, the combination of Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. discloses “wherein the distance defines space to be filled with the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation during step (2)”.
Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
the distance is in the range of 30 to 70 µm.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. to provide the distance is in the range of 30 to 70 µm for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 4, Chinnusamy discloses in Fig. 1k, paragraph [0034]
wherein step (2) is performed such that the encapsulation agent [132] is applied onto and between the bare semiconductor dies [104] and is hardened and dried [Encapsulant 132 is deposited over and around semiconductor die 104 using screen printing, spray coating, liquid encapsulant molding, spin coating. Encapsulant 132 can be cured immediately after deposition or later in the manufacturing process.]
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation; the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied onto and around the bare semiconductor die(s) and is hydraulically hardened and dried.
Consequently, the combination of Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. discloses limitation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Chinnusamy discloses in paragraph [0034] wherein the application of the encapsulation agent [132] is carried out by compression molding or by transfer molding.
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation, wherein the application of the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation [30] is carried out by compression molding or by transfer molding [paragraph [0021], “surround the component and/or sub-assembly to be encased with half-shell molds and to then fill these with the pourable mass. After setting and drying, the encapsulated component and/or encapsulated sub assembly can be taken out after the half shells are opened”].
Consequently, the combination of Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. discloses limitation of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Chinnusamy discloses in Fig. 1k the encapsulation agent [132] is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor dies.
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
wherein the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation, the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor die(s).
Thus, the combination of Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. discloses “the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor dies.”
Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
the thickness is 30 to 1000 µm.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Chinnusamy and Eisele et al. to provide the thickness is 30 to 1000 µm for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 18, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0020] wherein the phosphate cements comprise zinc phosphate cements or magnesium phosphate cements [magnesium phosphate cements].
Regarding claim 19, Scalan and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
wherein the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation has a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation.
However, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0026] “Examples of ingredients the encapsulating compound (30) can comprise aside from the cured inorganic cement include aluminum nitride particles, boron nitride particles, aluminum oxide particles and/or silicon nitride particles at a total volume fraction of, for example, 25 to 90% by volume, relative to the volume of the encapsulating compound (30)”. Thus, similar to the claimed hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition consists of 2 to 99.5 wt.- % of hydraulic hardened inorganic cement and 0.5 to 98 wt% of one or more further constituents, the encapsulating compound (30) disclosed by Eisele et al. appears to have the claimed property of “a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation.”
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Scalan and Eisele et al. to provide the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation has a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation having desired viscosity for its application during molding process and for obtaining desired encapsulation properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 20, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0019]-[0024]
wherein step (2) is performed such that the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied onto and between the bare semiconductor dies [20] and is hydraulically hardened and dried at a temperature ranging from 20 to 25°C [20 to 120°C].
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalan (US Pub. 20130168849) in view of Eisele et al. (US Pub. 20170133291).
Regarding claim 1, Scalan discloses in Fig. 5-8 a process for manufacturing of encapsulated semiconductor dies and/or of encapsulated semiconductor packages or for manufacturing of an encapsulation of semiconductor dies and/or of semiconductor packages comprising steps:
(1) assembling a multitude of bare semiconductor dies [305] on a temporary carrier [501][Fig. 5], and
(2) encapsulating the assembled bare semiconductor dies [305], wherein an encapsulation agent [601] is applied in step (2) [Fig. 6];
(3) removing the temporary carrier [501] [Fig. 7], and
(4) singulating the encapsulated semiconductor dies and/or encapsulated semiconductor packages [Fig. 8].
Scalan fails to disclose
wherein the encapsulation agent is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation;
the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent, and
the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements.
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
wherein the encapsulation agent [30] is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation;
the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent [paragraph [0019]-[0026]], and
the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements [magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eisele et al. into the method of Scalan to include wherein the encapsulation agent is an aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation; the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is made by mixing a hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water or by mixing of the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement with water and at least one further constituent, and the hydraulic hardenable inorganic cement is a powder selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, magnesium oxide cements, and phosphate cements. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Scalan in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable encapsulant having improved encapsulation, improved heat dissipation, and/or improved tensile strength and thermal fatigue resistance [paragraph [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0031] of Eisele et al.].
Regarding claim 3, Scalan discloses in Fig. 5 wherein the bare semiconductor dies [305] are assembled so as to have a distance between themselves, wherein the distance defines space to be filled with the encapsulation agent [601] during step (2).
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation.
Consequently, the combination of Scalan and Eisele et al. discloses “wherein the distance defines space to be filled with the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation during step (2)”.
Scalan and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
the distance is in the range of 30 to 70 µm.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Scalan and Eisele et al. to provide the distance is in the range of 30 to 70 µm for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 4, Scalan discloses in Fig. 5
wherein step (2) is performed such that the encapsulation agent [601] is applied onto and between the bare semiconductor dies [305].
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation; the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied onto and around the bare semiconductor die(s) and is hydraulically hardened and dried.
Consequently, the combination of Eisele et al. and Scalan would result to limitation of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Scalan discloses in paragraph [0048] wherein the application of the encapsulation agent [601] is carried out by compression molding or by transfer molding [compression molding].
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation, wherein the application of the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation [30] is carried out by compression molding or by transfer molding [paragraph [0021], “surround the component and/or sub-assembly to be encased with half-shell molds and to then fill these with the pourable mass. After setting and drying, the encapsulated component and/or encapsulated sub assembly can be taken out after the half shells are opened”].
Consequently, the combination of Scalan and Eisele et al. discloses limitation of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Scalan discloses in Fig. 6 the encapsulation agent [601] is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor dies.
Eisele et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0017]-[0035]
wherein the encapsulation agent [30] is the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation, the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor die(s).
Thus, the combination of Scalan and Eisele et al. discloses “the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied so as to form an encapsulation having a thickness on top of the semiconductor dies.”
Scalan and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
the thickness is 30 to 1000 µm.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Scalan and Eisele et al. to provide the thickness is 30 to 1000 µm for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 9, Scalan discloses in Fig. 7-8 steps:
an intermediate step (3') between steps (3) and (4) of providing encapsulated semiconductor dies with electrical insulation means [703] and electrical interconnection [702].
Regarding claim 18, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0020] wherein the phosphate cements comprise zinc phosphate cements or magnesium phosphate cements [magnesium phosphate cements].
Regarding claim 19, Scalan and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
wherein the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation has a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation.
However, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0026] “Examples of ingredients the encapsulating compound (30) can comprise aside from the cured inorganic cement include aluminum nitride particles, boron nitride particles, aluminum oxide particles and/or silicon nitride particles at a total volume fraction of, for example, 25 to 90% by volume, relative to the volume of the encapsulating compound (30)”. Thus, similar to the claimed hydraulic hardened inorganic cement composition consists of 2 to 99.5 wt.- % of hydraulic hardened inorganic cement and 0.5 to 98 wt% of one or more further constituents, the encapsulating compound (30) disclosed by Eisele et al. appears to have the claimed property of “a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation.”
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Scalan and Eisele et al. to provide the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation has a viscosity of 0.1 to 20 Pas within 5 minutes of its preparation for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation having desired viscosity for its application during molding process and for obtaining desired encapsulation properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 20, Eisele et al. discloses in paragraph [0019]-[0024]
wherein step (2) is performed such that the aqueous hydraulic hardening inorganic cement preparation is applied onto and between the bare semiconductor dies [20] and is hydraulically hardened and dried at a temperature ranging from 20 to 25°C [20 to 120°C].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalan (US Pub. 20130168849) in view of Eisele et al. (US Pub. 20170133291) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of van Gemert et al. (US Pub. 20160005626)
Regarding claim 10, Scalan discloses in Fig 8, paragraph [0053] wherein the singulating of step (4) is performed by sawing.
Scalan and Eisele et al. fails to disclose
wherein the singulating of step (4) is performed by diamond sawing.
van Gemert et al. discloses in Fig. 3A, paragraph [0033]
wherein the singulating is performed by diamond sawing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of van Gemert et al. into the method of Scalan and Eisele et al. to include wherein the singulating of step (4) is performed by diamond sawing. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Scalan and Eisele et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable means for sawing. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, 14, 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893