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 .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s response dated 03/06/2026 to a non-final Office Action dated 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 remain pending.
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 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0037537, hereafter Kim, in view of Kawate et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0090085, hereafter Kawate, and further in view of Tanikawa et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0049297, hereafter Tanikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (Figs 1-12) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
preparing (Figs. 2,3, par. [0036], Fig. 1, step [81]) a wafer [10] having a first surface [13] on which a plurality of semiconductor chips [14] are disposed and a second surface [15], opposite to the first surface [13];
grinding (par. [0038], Fig. 4, Fig. 1, step [82]), the second surface [15] of the wafer [10];
coating (Fig. 5, par. [0041], Fig. 1, step [83]) the ground second surface of the wafer with a liquid adhesive material to form an uncured adhesive layer [32] (par. [0041];
semi-curing (par. [0041]-[0044]) the uncured adhesive [32] layer on the wafer [10];
cutting (Fig. 6, par. [0045], Fig. 1, step [84]) the wafer [10] so as to separate the plurality of semiconductor chips from one another;
stacking (Fig. 12, par. [0052]) the plurality of semiconductor chips [214a], [214b] using the semi-cured adhesive layer [234a], [234b]; and
fully curing (par. [0052]) the semi-cured adhesive layer [234b] between the plurality of stacked semiconductor chips.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the uncured adhesive layer having an average thickness of less than 2 µm or less.
However, Kawate discloses (Figs 1-5, par. [0044]) the uncured adhesive layer [2] having a thickness of less than 2 µm or less (Kawate discloses an overlapping thickness range for the uncured adhesive [2] of between 1 and 100 µm, which therefore makes the thickness range obvious, MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of adhesive of 30-50 µm (par. [0017]) of Kim with a thinner adhesive of Kawate because this achieves size reduction.
Kim in view of Kawate fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness variation of the uncured adhesive layer is 10% or less of the average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer.
However, Tanikawa teaches (par. [0006]-[0008]) that thickness variation is a result-effective variable effecting bonding reliability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to arrive to the claimed range by routine optimization of this result-effective variable (MPEP, 2144. 05.II A, B), since clearly uneven adhesive thickness can cause defects during or after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (claims 1, 3, par. [0043]) wherein the liquid adhesive material includes a mixture of a photo-curable composition and a thermo-curable composition.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (par. [0043]) wherein the photo-curable composition is configured to be cured by ultraviolet (UV) light.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above.
Kim in view of Kawate fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the photo-curable composition includes an acrylic compound and a photoinitiator.
However, Tanikawa discloses a stacked chip package (Fig. 7)
wherein the photo-curable composition includes an acrylic compound and a photoinitiator (par. [0147])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use the adhesive of Tanikawa in the package of Kim because Tanikawa teaches (par [0006]-[0008]) that this helps to increase reliability and apply the adhesive with uniform thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (par. [0017]) wherein the photo-curable composition is configured to cure at a temperature in the range of 100°C to 150°C.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim in view of Kawate fails to explicitly disclose wherein the thermo-curable composition includes an epoxy-based compound, a thermosetting agent, and a curing accelerator.
However, Tanikawa discloses a stacked chip package (Fig. 7)
wherein the thermo-curable composition includes an epoxy-based compound, a thermosetting agent, and a curing accelerator (par. [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use the adhesive of Tanikawa in the package of Kim because Tanikawa teaches (par [0006]-[0008]) that this helps to increase reliability and apply the adhesive with uniform thickness
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (par. [0019], Fig. 12) wherein the stacking of the plurality of semiconductor chips includes a hot pressing process.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. The limitation” “wherein the hot pressing process is performed in a temperature range of 70°C to 100°C” is further obvious over Kim (par [0043]), who discloses a close temperature range, the temperature of the hot pressing process can be optimized for package reliability (MPEP, Latest Edition, 2144.06.I and IIA)
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein the liquid adhesive material has a viscosity of 2000 cP or less” is further obvious over the range of viscosity of the liquid adhesive disclosed by Kim (e.g., claim 9), because Kim discloses an overlapping viscosity ranges (1 poise is equal to 100 cP, MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim in view of Kawate fails to explicitly disclose wherein the liquid adhesive material has a viscosity of 10 cP to 1000 cP.
However, Tanikawa discloses (par. [0066], 1 mPa s is equivalent to 1cP) wherein the liquid adhesive material has a viscosity of 10 cP to 1000 cP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use the adhesive of Tanikawa in the package of Kim because Tanikawa teaches (par [0006]-[0008]) that this helps to increase reliability and apply the adhesive with uniform thickness.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein the uncured adhesive layer has an average thickness in the range of 0.2 µm to less than 2 µm” is further obvious over the thickness range (par. [0044]) of liquid adhesive disclosed by Kawate (MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of adhesive layer of Kim with the teachings of Kawate for the reasons applied in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim in view of Kawate fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fully cured adhesive layer has a thickness in a range of 70% to 90% of a thickness of the uncured adhesive layer.
However, some reduction of layer thickness upon curing or semi-curing is a known property of adhesives (par. [0044] of Kim), and the claimed range corresponds to a typical value of such volume reduction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to arrive to the claimed range by routine optimization of this result-effective variable (MPEP, 2144. 05.II A, B), since clearly a thickness reduction can cause warpage or other during or after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 14. Kim discloses (Figs 1-12) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
preparing (Fig. 1, step [81], Fig. 5) a wafer [10] having a first surface [13] and a second surface [15] opposite to the first surface, the wafer [10] including a plurality of semiconductor chips [14] disposed on the first surface [13];
coating (Fig. 5, par. [0041]-[0043]) the second surface [15] of the wafer with a liquid adhesive material having a viscosity (par. [0044] discloses a range of the viscosity of uncured adhesive 2000 cP-3000cP) to form uncured adhesive layer [32] having an average thickness;
semi-curing (par. [0043]) the uncured adhesive layer by applying a first type of energy (UV light energy exposure) to the wafer [10];
cutting (Fig. 6) the wafer so as to separate the plurality of semiconductor chips [14] from one another;
stacking (Fig. 12, par. [0052], Fig. 1, step [85a]) the plurality of semiconductor chips [214a], [214b] using the semi-cured (B-stage) adhesive layer [234a, b]; and
fully curing (Fig.1, step [85b], par. [0047] the semi-cured adhesive layer disposed between the plurality of stacked semiconductor chips by applying a second type of energy (heat).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the uncured adhesive layer having a viscosity in a range of less than 50 cP, the uncured adhesive layer having an average thickness of less than 2 µm and having a thickness variation of 10% or less of the average thickness.
However, Kawate discloses (Figs 1-5, par. [0044]) the uncured adhesive layer [2] having an average thickness of less than 2 µm (Kawate discloses an overlapping thickness range for the uncured adhesive [2] of between 1 and 100 µm, which therefore makes the thickness range obvious, MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein).
Tanikawa discloses (par. [0016]) the uncured adhesive layer having a viscosity in a range of less than 50 cP (Tanikawa discloses an overlapping viscosity range for the uncured adhesive of between 1 and 100 µm, which therefore makes the thickness range obvious, MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of adhesive of 30-50 µm (par. [0017]) of Kim with a thinner adhesive of Kawate because this achieves size reduction.
Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness variation of the uncured adhesive layer is 10% or less of the average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer.
However, Tanikawa teaches (par. [0006]-[0008]) that thickness variation is a result-effective variable effecting bonding reliability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to arrive to the claimed range by routine optimization of this result-effective variable (MPEP, 2144. 05.II A, B), since clearly uneven adhesive thickness can cause defects during or after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (Figs 1-12, par. [0043]-[0047], claim 3) wherein
the liquid adhesive material includes a photo-curable composition (par. [0043]) and a thermo-curable composition (par. [0017]-[0018]) that are mixed together, and
the first type of energy is light energy and the second type of energy is thermal energy.
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Kawate in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (claim 12, par. [0017]-[0018], [0043], [0047], [0052]) wherein
the stacking of the plurality of semiconductor chips is performed at a first temperature (100-150 degrees C), and the fully curing of the semi-cured adhesive layer is performed at a second temperature (150-200 degrees C) that is higher than the first temperature.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0037537, hereafter Kim, in view of Tanikawa et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0049297, hereafter Tanikawa.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses (Figs 1-12) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising:
preparing (Figs. 2,3, par. [0036], Fig. 1, step [81]) a wafer [10] having a first surface [13] on which a plurality of semiconductor chips [14] are disposed and a second surface [15], opposite to the first surface [13];
coating (Fig. 5, par. [0041], Fig. 1, step [83]) the second surface of the wafer with a liquid adhesive material including an ultraviolet (UV)-curable composition and a thermo-curable composition to form an uncured adhesive layer [32] (the thermo-curable and the UV-curable compositions are obvious from par. [0043] because both forms of energy are used in the curing process);
semi-curing (par. [0041]-[0044]) the uncured adhesive [32] layer on the wafer [10] by one of applying ultraviolet light or heat to the wafer;
cutting (Fig. 6, par. [0045], Fig. 1, step [84]) the wafer [10] so as to separate the plurality of semiconductor chips [14] from one another;
stacking (Fig. 12, par. [0052]) the plurality of semiconductor chips [214a], [214b] using the semi-cured adhesive layer [234a], [234b]; and
fully curing (par. [0052]) the semi-cured adhesive layer [234b] between the plurality of stacked semiconductor chips [214a,b],
fully curing the semi-cured adhesive layer disposed between the plurality of stacked semiconductor chips by applying heat if the semi-curing of the uncured adhesive layer is performed by ultraviolet light; or
fully curing the semi-cured adhesive layer disposed between the plurality of stacked semiconductor chips by ultraviolet light if the semi-curing of the uncured adhesive layer is performed by heat (par. [0043]).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose
the liquid adhesive material having a viscosity of less than 50 cP;
the uncured adhesive layer having a thickness variation of 10% or less than an average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer.
However, Tanikawa discloses (par. [0016])
the liquid adhesive material having a viscosity of less than 50 cP.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tanaka with the teachings of viscosity of Tanikawa because Tanikawa teaches (par. [0006]-[0008]) that one must optimize parameters which affect adhesive layer uniformity including viscosity.
Kim in view of Tanikawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness variation of the uncured adhesive layer is 10% or less of the average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer.
However, Tanikawa teaches (par. [0006]-[0008]) that thickness variation is a result-effective variable effecting bonding reliability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to arrive to the claimed range by routine optimization of this result-effective variable (MPEP, 2144. 05.II A, B), since clearly uneven adhesive thickness can cause defects during or after the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim further discloses (claims 6, 11, 17) wherein
the semi-curing of the uncured adhesive layer is performed using UV light (par. [0043]),
the stacking of the plurality of semiconductor chips is performed at a first temperature (100-150 degrees Celcius, to maintain B-stage adhesive), and
the fully curing of the semi-cured adhesive layer is performed at a second temperature (150-200 degrees Celcius) that is higher than the first temperature.
Claiim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0037537, hereafter Kim, in view of Tanikawa et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0049297, hereafter Tanikawa, and further in view of Kawate et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0090085, hereafter Kawate.
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Tanikawa discloses everything as applied above. Kim in view of Tanikawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer is in a range of 0.2 um to 3 um.
However, Kawate discloses (Figs 1-5, par. [0044]) wherein average thickness of the uncured adhesive layer is in a range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (Kawate discloses an overlapping thickness range for the uncured adhesive [2] of between 1 and 100 µm, which therefore makes the thickness range obvious, MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I, and case law therein).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the thickness of adhesive of 30-50 µm (par. [0017]) of Kim with a thinner adhesive of Kawate because this achieves size reduction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection claims 1-11,13-16, and 18-20 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 arguments.
One argument that could potentially remain (pp. 7-8) is that thickness variation is a result-effective variable. This is actually taught (par. [0006]-[0008]) by the prior art of record (Tanikawa, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0049297).
The new reference is Kawate, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0090085, while Jin (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0028671) is no longer used.
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 VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights