Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/258,454

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, KHIEM D
Art Unit
2892
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Resonac Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1872 granted / 2187 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
2260
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2187 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 . Remarks The amendment filed on December 05th, 2025 has been acknowledged. By this amendment, claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended, claim 2 has been cancelled, and claims 7-13 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-13 are pending in the present application in which claims 1, 7, and 11 are in independent form. Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 2-6 had obviated the claim objections indicated in the previous office action. Applicant’s amendment to the title has been accepted. 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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukari (JP-2000-31342A), cited in the IDS filed on 07/06/2023, in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A), cited in the IDS filed on 07/06/2023. In re claim 11, Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: a step of disposing an adhesive thermal insulation material 10 on a semiconductor device 106 (see paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0011], [0012], [0013] and figs. 1-2); a step of performing reflow of the semiconductor device 106 having the adhesive thermal insulation material 10 disposed thereon; and a step of detaching the adhesive thermal insulation material 10 from the semiconductor device 106 (see paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0011], [0012], [0013] and fig. 2). Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) is silent to wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles. However, Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) discloses wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles (see paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0011], [0012], [0025], note that, JP-2009-227867A discloses that 1 to 30 parts by mass of microballoons mainly composed of borosilicate glass and 0.4 to 2.0 parts by mass of thermally expandable microcapsules are blended with 100 parts by mass of thermoplastic elastomer, the thermally expandable microcapsules are thermally expanded and molded into a foam sheet that is excellent in heat insulation and flexibility, is excellent in handleability, workability, and moldability, and can be applied to various uses). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Hiroshi et al (JP-2009-227867A) into the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device of Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) in order to enable wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles in Yukari (JP-2000-31342A )to be performed because the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer would be excellent in heat insulation and flexibility, is excellent in handleability, workability, and moldability, and can be applied to various uses (see paragraph [0004] of JP-2009-227867A). Additionally, 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) is silent wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material molded in advance into a sheet shape is disposed in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material. However, Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) discloses wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material molded in advance into a sheet shape is disposed in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material (see paragraphs [0004], [0006]). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) into the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device of Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) in order to enable wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material molded in advance into a sheet shape is disposed in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material in Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) to be performed because the adhesive thermal insulation material molded in advance into a sheet shape would be excellent in heat insulation and flexibility (see paragraph [0004] of JP-2009-227867A). Additionally, 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Yukari) JP-2000-31342A, cited in the IDS filed on 07/06/2023, in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A), cited in the IDS filed on 07/06/2023, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kaneko et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0180481), of record. In re claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) is silent to wherein a liquid thermal insulation material precursor is disposed on the semiconductor device, and then the liquid thermal insulation material precursor is cured in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material. However, Kaneko disclose in a same field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, including, inter-alia, wherein a liquid thermal insulation material precursor is disposed on the semiconductor device, and then the liquid thermal insulation material precursor is cured in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material 106 (see paragraph [0114] and fig. 1). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kaneko into the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device of Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) in order to enable wherein a liquid thermal insulation material precursor is disposed on the semiconductor device, and then the liquid thermal insulation material precursor is cured in the step of disposing the adhesive thermal insulation material in JP-2000-31342A to be performed because 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3-10 are allowed over prior art of record. Reasons For Allowance The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: It is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claims 1 and 7 as a whole taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material satisfies the following Formula (A): F1>F2…(A), wherein, in the Formula (A), F1 is represents the adhesive strength of the adhesive thermal insulation material after heating the adhesive thermal insulation material at 220°C for 120 seconds, and F2 represents the adhesive strength of the adhesive thermal insulation material after heating the adhesive thermal insulation material at 260°C for 30 seconds”, as recited in independent 1 and “wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material satisfies the following Formula (B): F0 ≤ F1 …(B) wherein, in the Formula (B), F0 represents the adhesive strength of the adhesive thermal insulation material at 25°C, and F1 represents the adhesive strength of the adhesive thermal insulation material after heating the adhesive thermal insulation material at 220°C for 120 seconds”, as recited in independent claim 7. Claims 3-6 and 8-10 also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claims. Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 05th, 2023 with respect to claims 11-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Particularly, with respect to independent claim 11, Applicant contends that the thermally expandable microcapsules as taught by Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) have already been expanded in the foamed sheet and the foamed sheet does not contain thermally expandable hollow particles (hollow particles whose maximum volumetric expansion ratio relative to the volume at 25°C is 10 times or more) as supported by paragraph [0073] of the present specification of Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant concludes that the microcapsules in the foamed sheet are already expand, they are no longer thermally expandable microcapsules. However, it is respectfully submitted that Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because although Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) is silent to wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles. However, Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) discloses wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles (see paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0011], [0012], [0025], note that, JP-2009-227867A discloses that 1 to 30 parts by mass of microballoons mainly composed of borosilicate glass and 0.4 to 2.0 parts by mass of thermally expandable microcapsules are blended with 100 parts by mass of thermoplastic elastomer, the thermally expandable microcapsules are thermally expanded and molded into a foam sheet that is excellent in heat insulation and flexibility, is excellent in handleability, workability, and moldability, and can be applied to various uses). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) into the method for manufacturing the semiconductor device of Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) in order to enable wherein the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer and thermally expandable hollow particles in Yukari (JP-2000-31342A) to be performed because the adhesive thermal insulation material contains a matrix polymer would be excellent in heat insulation and flexibility, is excellent in handleability, workability, and moldability, and can be applied to various uses (see paragraph [0004] of Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A)). Additionally, 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 it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Particularly, Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) discloses by thermally expanding the expansible microcapsules which constitutes as the thermally expandable hollow particles, and molding them into a sheet, the foamed sheet excellent in various performances such as heat insulation, flexibility, heat shrinkage resistance, dimensional stability, handling, workability, and moldability (see paragraph [0011] and that the temperature during molding depends on the expansion start temperature of the thermally expandable microcapsules to be used, but is preferable to the expansion start temperature (preferably set in a range of 40-80°C) in order to ensure expansion of the thermally expandable microcapsules and prevent rupture due to excessive expansion (see paragraph [0025]). Thus, Hiroshi et al. (JP-2009-227867A) suggested that the adhesive thermal insulation material contains thermally expandable hollow particles and are affected by the expansion start temperature. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., hollow particles whose maximum volumetric expansion ratio relative to the volume at 25°C is 10 times or more) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). It is respectfully submitted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For this reason, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is proper. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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. /KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603626
MULTI-PHASE-BASED DOHERTY POWER AMPLIFIER METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599329
Sense Amplifer For a Physiological Sensor and/or Other Sensors
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599000
NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING FIRST AND SECOND MONITORING CHANNEL STRUCTURES AND NON-VOLATILE MEMORY SYSTEM COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12599018
PACKAGE STRUCTURE WITH ENHANCEMENT STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592674
SELF-BIAS SIGNAL GENERATING CIRCUIT USING DIFFERENTIAL SIGNAL AND RECEIVER INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 2187 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month