Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,182

ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND FILM ADHESIVE, AND SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE USING FILM ADHESIVE AND PRODUCING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
MICHAUD, ROBERT J
Art Unit
2622
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
494 granted / 593 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
614
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 593 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 states: “an epoxy resin (A), an epoxy resin curing agent (B), a polyurethane resin (C), and an inorganic filler (D), wherein the polyurethane resin (C) … the polyurethane resin (C) …. the epoxy resin (A) and the polyurethane resin (C) … .” The terms (A), (B), (C), and (D) are not defined and make the claim indefinite. Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and as such they suffer from the same deficiencies. Appropriate action is required to correct the claim Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 states – “A method of producing a semiconductor package, comprising: a first step of providing an adhesive layer by thermocompression bonding the film adhesive according to claim 3”. It is unclear if claim 5 is an independent claim or a dependent claim. Claim 5 appears to be an independent “method claim” however it is drafted as being dependent upon claim 3. An independent claim cannot depend from another claim. Further a dependent claim must be the same type of claim as the claim it depends from. However claim 3 is not a method claim thus, in any case, claim 5 cannot depend from claim 3 as presently presented. The applicant must decide if claim 5 is an independent method claim and redraft the claim accordingly or it must make claim 3 a method claim, and claim 5 may become a dependent claim upon claim 3 if the claims are redrafted correctly. The examiner has treated claim five as an independent method claim for the purposes of examination of the application for this office action. Appropriate action is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maejima US Patent Application (20140205816), hereinafter “Maejima” Regarding claim 5 Maejima teaches a method of producing a semiconductor package, the manufacture of the semiconductor device [Maejima para 0066] comprising: a first step of providing an adhesive layer by thermocompression bonding is subjected to thermocompression bonding to interpose the conductive particles [Maejima para 0006] the film adhesive to a back surface of a semiconductor wafer in which at least one semiconductor circuit is formed on a surface, a positional shift of the semiconductor wafer is reliably prevented, and thus the dimensional accuracy of a semiconductor chip. [Maejima para 0068] and providing a dicing film with the adhesive layer interposed between the back surface and the dicing film The adhesive film included in the dicing-film-integrated adhesive sheet of the present invention is a film having adhesion [Maejima para 0010]; a second step of integrally dicing the semiconductor wafer and the adhesive layer to obtain a semiconductor chip with an adhesive layer, When the average thickness of the adhesive layer of the dicing tape is in the above range, shape followability of the adhesive layer of the dicing tape is ensured, and thus the adhesion of the adhesive film to a semiconductor wafer can be further increased. [Maejima para 0065]; the semiconductor chip including the semiconductor chip and a piece of the film adhesive on the dicing film by increasing the tackiness of the adhesive layer of the dicing tape, in a second process of the manufacture of the semiconductor device, which will be described later, when the semiconductor wafer is diced to be divided, the dicing tape and a wafer ring are reliably fixed to each other. [Maejima para 0067]; a third step of removing the dicing film from the semiconductor chip with an adhesive layer since the adhesive film contains (C) the compound having a flux activity function, a metal oxide film of a solder surface of at least one of the first terminal of the support body (the semiconductor chip, the board, and the like) and the second terminal of the adherend (the semiconductor chip, the board, and the like) can be removed [Maejima para 0092] and thermocompression bonding the semiconductor chip with an adhesive layer and a circuit board via the adhesive layer he film on which the adhesive film was formed was punched to have a diameter greater than the outside diameter of a semiconductor wafer and smaller than the inside diameter of a wafer ring, and thereafter unnecessary parts thereof on the outside were removed. [Maejima para 0214]; and a fourth step of thermally curing the adhesive layer. the resultant was heated under the atmosphere having a fluid pressure (air pressure) of 0.8 MPa at 180.degree. C. for 60 minutes to cure the adhesive film, thereby obtaining a semiconductor device in which the semiconductor chip and the circuit board were adhered by the cured material of the adhesive film. [Maejima para 0227]; Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima and Aoyagi et al., WIPO (WO 2018211887 A1), hereinafter “Aoyagi” Regarding claim 1 Aoyagi teaches an adhesive composition, the prepared conductive adhesive composition to prepare a paste-like conductive adhesive composition [Aoyagi and see Figs. 1-5] comprising: an epoxy resin (A) A type solid epoxy resin [Aoyagi example 11], an epoxy resin curing agent (B) a curing agent [Aoyagi example 11], a polyurethane resin (C) A polyurethane modified polyester resin (UR 3500 … ) [Aoyagi example 13], and an inorganic filler (D) The conductive filler was dendritic silver-coated copper powder [Aoyagi example 11]; wherein a proportion of the polyurethane resin (C) based on a total content of the epoxy resin (A) and the polyurethane resin (C) is from 2 to 50 mass%. (A / (A + B) = 89.5% by mass) was 85 parts by mass of the acrylic resin, 10 parts by mass of the thermosetting resin, and 5 parts by mass of the solid epoxy resin. [Aoyagi example 11] (i.e. 10/10+85 * 100 = 10.5 %); and Aoyagi does not explicitly teach but Maejima teaches wherein the polyurethane resin (C) has a tan δ peak the tan delta peak is considered to be (Tg) and is obtained from a dynamic mechanical analysis test (DMA). [Maejima para 0049] top temperature of 0°C or higher in dynamic mechanical analysis, the core/shell polymer to increase elongation but should be used in low amounts to retain the desired Tg of 80.degree. C. or higher. [Maejima para 0049] Aoyagi discloses a conductive adhesive contains: an acrylic resin having a weight-average molecular weight of 500,000-1,000,000 and an epoxy group; a thermosetting resin having a glass transition temperature of 0-50ºC; a number-average molecular weight of 10,000-50,000, and a functional group reactive with an epoxy group; and a conductive filler. The ratio of the acrylic resin with respect to the sum of the acrylic resin and the thermosetting resin is 15-95 mass% Maejima discloses a dicing-tape-integrated adhesive sheet is provided in which connection between terminals of opposing members and encapsulating of voids between the members can be simultaneously performed and thus excellent workability is achieved. The dicing-tape-integrated adhesive sheet of the present invention has a laminated structure including an adhesive film which has a first terminal of a support body and a second terminal of an adherend that are electrically connected using solder and by which the support body and the adherend are adhered to each other and a dicing tape. Prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Aoyagi and Maejima in the art of conductive adhesives, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as the combined teachings and technologies were well known in the art. Maejima improves Aoyagi’s systems, methods and/or apparatus by using Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) to measure the mechanical properties over a wide temperature range to obtain both the glassy and rubbery modulus (i.e. elastic stiffness) in addition to assigning the glass transition temperature (Tg). Regarding claim 2 Aoyagi and Maejima discloses claim 1 in addition Maejima teaches wherein when a pre- cured film adhesive formed using the adhesive composition is heated at a temperature elevation rate of 5 ° C/min from 25°C, a melt viscosity at 120°C ranges from 100 to 10,000 Pas. a melt viscosity of the adhesive film at the adhesion temperature is .eta.[Pas], a relationship of 1.2.times.10.sup.3.ltoreq. (T.times.P)/.eta. .ltoreq.1.5. times.10.sup.9 is satisfied, and the adhesion temperature T is 60 to 150.degree. C., the pressure P is 0.2 to 1.0 MPa, and the melt viscosity .eta. of the adhesive film at the adhesion temperature T is 0.1 to 100,000 Pas. [Maejima para 0012]; Regarding claim 3 Aoyagi and Maejima discloses claim 1 in addition Aoyagi teaches a film adhesive obtained from the adhesive composition according to claim 1. A conductive adhesive film 141 [Aoyagi] Regarding claim 4 Aoyagi and Maejima discloses claim 3 in addition Aoyagi teaches which has a thickness of 1 to 20 μm. The thickness of the conductive adhesive layer 130 is preferably 15 μm to 100 μm. [Aoyagi] Regarding claim 6 Aoyagi and Maejima discloses claim 3 in addition Maejima teaches a semiconductor package wherein a semiconductor chip and a circuit board, or semiconductor chips are bonded with a thermally curable component of the film adhesive one of the semiconductor chips was pushed up by a needle from the rear surface of the dicing-tape-integrated adhesive sheet, and the semiconductor chip was pulled up while the surface of the pushed semiconductor chip was adsorbed by a collet of a die bonder. Accordingly, the semiconductor chip having the adhesive film was picked up. [Maejima para 0225] the resultant was heated under the atmosphere having a fluid pressure (air pressure) of 0.8 MPa at 180.degree. C. for 60 minutes to cure the adhesive film, thereby obtaining a semiconductor device in which the semiconductor chip and the circuit board were adhered by the cured material of the adhesive film. [Maejima para 0227]; Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MICHAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3981. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on 571-272-7603. 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. /ROBERT J MICHAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589690
LIGHTING DEVICE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE, COMPRISING AN ILLUMINATED SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585123
ACTIVE OPTICAL ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575760
Closed-loop wearable sensor and method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560982
DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563901
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 593 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month