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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 15-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (US 20120270381 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Joo discloses a die attach film that comprises a base film (i.e. claimed substrate), a pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer), and an adhesive part (i.e. claimed adhesive layer), in this order (para 0014). The pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer) comprises a base resin which may include an acrylic resin (para 0026) including a copolymer of (meth)acrylic acid ester and a monomer having a carboxyl group (paras 0027, 0029), and a crosslinking agent (i.e. curing agent) such as an epoxy compound or a metal chelate (para 0034).
The base layer may have a thickness as low as 10 microns (para 0022), and the ratio of the thickness of the pressure sensitive adhesive part to the base layer is 0.15 to 0.5 (para 0017). Therefore the thickness of the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer) is 1.5 to 5 microns.
While Joo does not disclose the elongation rate of the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer), since Joo discloses pressure-sensitive adhesive part comprising all the limitations of the claimed base layer, including carboxyl group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer and epoxy or metal chelate curing agent, the pressure-sensitive adhesive part would necessarily have elongation rate as claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed film and that disclosed by Joo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a film that is both disclosed by Joo and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 15-16, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. Joo further discloses the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer) comprises the epoxy or metal chelate crosslinking agent, in an amount of 2 to 40 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts base resin (para 0034).
Regarding Claims 7-9 and 17-19, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. Joo further discloses the base layer (i.e. claimed substrate) comprises film having copolymer of polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene, and may be subject to corona treatment (para 0020).
Regarding Claims 12 and 22, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. While Joo discloses film used in semiconductor production (Abstract), there is no disclosure of the film being a mold release film as claimed. However, Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Joo discloses a film as presently claimed, it is clear that the film would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used in a process of encapsulating a semiconductor device with a curable resin, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (JP 2019/161031 A).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. Joo does not disclose the acid value of the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer).
Morimoto discloses an adhesive tape for semiconductor wafers comprising base film (i.e. substrate) and adhesive layer (para 0018), wherein the adhesive layer comprises an acrylic adhesive polymer preferably having an acid value of 2.0 mgKOH/g or less, to achieve desirable adhesive strength (para 0053).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Joo to incorporate the teachings of Morimoto to produce the film of Joo wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer) has an acid value of 2.0 mgKOH/g or less. Doing so would achieve desirable adhesive strength.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yokoi et al. (JP 2011/151355 A).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. Joo further discloses the adhesive part (i.e. claimed adhesive layer) may comprise (meth)acrylic resin having hydroxy group (paras 0049-0050), and a hardener which is not limited (para 0052).
Joo does not disclose the hardener being polyfunctional isocyanate compound.
Yokoi discloses a tape (i.e. film) for semiconductor wafers (para 0009) that has a substrate, intermediate resin layer (i.e. base layer), and adhesive layer in this order (para 0017). The intermediate resin layer comprises carboxyl (meth)acrylic resin (para 0019) and crosslinker such as epoxy or metal chelate (para 0023). Yokoi further discloses the adhesive layer comprises hydroxyethylacrylate (para 0031) and crosslinker such as polyfunctional isocyanate, which is used to control the value of the adhesive force and the cohesive force (para 0032).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Joo to incorporate the teachings of Yokoi to produce the film of Joo using polyfunctional isocyanate as the hardener in the adhesive part (i.e. claimed adhesive layer). Doing so would control the value of the adhesive force and the cohesive force.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Kurihara et al. (US 2019/0088528 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 21, Joo discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 2 above. Joo does not disclose the antistatic layer as claimed.
Kurihara discloses an adhesive film 100 (para 0066) comprising base material layer (i.e. substrate) 10 and adhesive resin layer 20 (para 0071) where the adhesive resin layer 20 comprises resin layer 20c, antistatic layer 20b and adhesive layer 20a (paras 0088 and 0090, Fig. 3). The antistatic layer decreases the electrostatic potential of the adhesive film (para 0089) and improves the antistatic property and suppresses the amount of static electricity being generated when the adhesive film is peeled off from the semiconductor wafer (para 0152).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Joo to incorporate the teachings of Kurihara and produce the film of Joo further comprising an antistatic layer between the pressure-sensitive adhesive part (i.e. claimed base layer) and the adhesive part (i.e. claimed adhesive layer). Doing so would decrease the electrostatic potential of the film, improve the antistatic property, and suppress the amount of static electricity being generated when the adhesive film is peeled off from the semiconductor component.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendment filed 09/25/2025, the 35 USC 103 rejections of record are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth above.
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 BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787