DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 & 3-12 are pending as amended on 06/02/26,
claims 6 & 10 being withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on June 2, 2026. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly. New claims 11-12 have been added.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashishita et al., WO 2013/021644.
With regard to claims 1 & 3, the prior art teaches a known method for pressing a peripherally protruding protective film (10) to a wafer (20) containing bumps on its main surface & a peripheral edge without bumps, wherein two pressing members (22) with flat undersides compress the film in a thickness direction against the wafer/bumps & a peripheral support member (30) to protect the bumps (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0073 & FIGS. 2C-2E, 6-7]).
With regard to claim 4, the support member is also shown to be parallel to the wafer surface [FIG. 2C].
With regard to claims 7-8, the protective film can be heated into a plastic state [0073].
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 of this title, 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 9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashishita et al., WO 2013/021644 in view of Nagamoto et al., US 2007/0066184.
With regard to claim 9, the protective film thickness is also shown to be greater than the bump height [FIGS. 2-5 & 6-7], wherein the bumps may be 15-100% of the thickness of the softening layer of the protective film [0013], wherein meeting the claimed thickness ratio if not already understood would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to provide enhanced conformation/encapsulation.
With regard to claims 11-12, while Hayashishita does not expressly disclose whether its surface bumps are ball bumps or the like, with an average height of 5-250 microns, this was conventional in this art, as taught for example by Nagamoto, which describes the conventional practice of forming solder balls of about 100 microns in size which are covered and encapsulated by a protective adhesive tape during processing [0002]. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Nagamoto with those of Hayashishita, in order to yield a protective tape covering method for solder bumps of a standard type & size with predictable success.
Claims 1, 3-5 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., JP 2008-166459 in view of Seykia et al., US 2018/0315610.
With regard to claims 1 & 3, Shimizu teaches a known method for pressing a peripherally protruding protective film (14) to a wafer (12) which comprises bumps (12a) on its main surface & a peripheral edge without bumps, wherein a pressing member (26) compresses the film in a thickness direction against the wafer/bumps & also against a peripheral support member (22) in order to protect the bumps, wherein the top of the peripheral support member is parallel to the wafer main surface, and the clearance between the pressing member and the peripheral support member is less than the clearance between the pressing member and the wafer main surface (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]).
While Shimizu does not expressly disclose that the entire lower pressing surface is a flat surface, the bottom pressing portion of the exemplary roller is believed to be flat/a straight line along its width, which may be considered to satisfy such a limitation. In any event, rollers and plate pressers were known variants for wafer tape laminating systems, as shown for example by Sekiya, which uses rollers (86) and flat platens (72/74) to laminate such layers (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 6-7]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a flat press plate for a press roller to perform substantially the same lamination process with predictable success.
With regard to claim 4, the support member is also shown to be parallel to the wafer surface [FIG. 2].
With regard to claim 5, Figures 1-2 appear to show that the exemplary vertical distance between the main surface of the wafer & the pressing member/tape top is larger than the vertical distance between the peripheral support member & the pressing member/tape top, and thus if not already understood, making the distance in question smaller would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to provide enhanced compression of the film at an edge.
With regard to claims 7-8, the protective films of Shimizu [0027] can be heated into a plastic state in the usual manner.
With regard to claim 9, Figure 2 appears to show that the exemplary protective film thickness is no less than half the bump height as claimed (and indeed appears to be greater than the bump height, encapsulating said bumps), wherein meeting the claimed thickness ratio if not already understood would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to provide enhanced conformation/encapsulation.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., JP 2008-166459 in view of Seykia et al., US 2018/0315610 and further in view of Priewasser et al., US 2019/0252254.
The teachings of Shimizu & Sekyia have been detailed above, and while
while they do not expressly disclose whether its surface bumps are ball bumps or the like, with an average height of 5-250 microns, this was conventional in this art, as taught for example by Priewasser, which describes the conventional practice of forming solder balls of about 70-150 microns in size which are covered and encapsulated by a protective adhesive tape during processing (e.g. [0005, 0137-0144 & FIGS. 11-12]). It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Priewasser with those of Shimizu & Sekiya, in order to yield a protective tape covering method for bumps of a standard type & size with predictable success.
Claims 1, 3-5 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., JP 2008-166459 in view of Okuno et al., US 2010/0038009.
With regard to claims 1 & 3, Shimizu teaches a known method for pressing a peripherally protruding protective film (14) to a wafer (12) which comprises bumps (12a) on its main surface & a peripheral edge without bumps, wherein a pressing member (26) compresses the film in a thickness direction against the wafer/bumps & also against a peripheral support member (22) in order to protect the bumps, wherein the top of the peripheral support member is parallel to the wafer main surface, and the clearance between the pressing member and the peripheral support member is less than the clearance between the pressing member and the wafer main surface (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]).
While Shimizu does not expressly disclose that the entire lower pressing surface is a flat surface, the bottom pressing portion of the exemplary roller is believed to be flat/a straight line along its width, which may be considered to satisfy such a limitation. In any event, rollers and plate pressers were known variants for wafer tape laminating systems, as shown for example by Okuno, which uses rollers, wipers, or flat platens to laminate such layers (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 11-13]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a flat press plate for a press roller to perform substantially the same lamination process with predictable success.
With regard to claim 4, the support member is also shown to be parallel to the wafer surface [FIG. 2].
With regard to claim 5, Figures 1-2 appear to show that the exemplary vertical distance between the main surface of the wafer & the pressing member/tape top is larger than the vertical distance between the peripheral support member & the pressing member/tape top, and thus if not already understood, making the distance in question smaller would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to provide enhanced compression of the film at an edge.
With regard to claims 7-8, the protective films of Shimizu [0027] can be heated into a plastic state in the usual manner.
With regard to claim 9, Figure 2 appears to show that the exemplary protective film thickness is no less than half the bump height as claimed (and indeed appears to be greater than the bump height, encapsulating said bumps), wherein meeting the claimed thickness ratio if not already understood would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to provide enhanced conformation/encapsulation.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al., JP 2008-166459 in view of Okuno et al., US 2010/0038009 and further in view of Priewasser et al., US 2019/0252254.
The teachings of Shimizu & Okuno have been detailed above, and while
while they do not expressly disclose whether its surface bumps are ball bumps or the like, with an average height of 5-250 microns, this was conventional in this art, as taught for example by Priewasser, which describes the conventional practice of forming solder balls of about 70-150 microns in size which are covered and encapsulated by a protective adhesive tape during processing (e.g. [0005, 0137-0144 & FIGS. 11-12]). It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Priewasser with those of Shimizu & Okuno, in order to yield a protective tape covering method for bumps of a standard type & size with predictable success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed June 2, 2026 with respect to the double patenting rejections are persuasive, and said rejections have been withdrawn. Arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are primarily drawn toward the claims as amended but are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s general assertions that Hayashishita ‘addresses/considers a different problem’, and that it does not disclose that its ‘irregularities’ are ‘bumps’, these are not persuasive, as no clear distinctions have been drawn between the cited prior art and the claim language; the prior art is considered to meet the claims as written. If Applicant believes there to be a patentable distinction, it is recommended it be set forth in the claims in a clear & definite manner. Further, with regard to new claims 11-12, as these describe only conventional structures for such a process which are commonly known to be protected by tape (e.g. Nagamoto, the previously cited Priewasser, etc), these claims also fail to patentably distinguish Applicant’s invention over the prior art.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments against Shimizu, Applicant has not addressed the finding that the bottom pressing portion of the exemplary roller is believed to be flat/a straight line along its width, which may be considered to satisfy such a limitation as written. However, the rejection is also based on a combination with prior art which suggests the well-known interchangeability of press rollers and flat press platens in this art. Applicant’s assertions that ‘the problems addressed differ’ is not a clearly articulated argument against the applied art and how it allegedly would fail to meet the language of the pending claims. ‘Simultaneous’ pressing also does not appear in the claim language and would thus appear to be moot. Further, Applicants have failed to explain that such a modification would have been non-obvious. Examiner also notes the newly cited Okuno, which further underscores the known interchangeability in different types of protective tape pressing members in this art, where either simultaneous platen pressing or progressive rolling/wiping were well-known alternatives for applying tape which would have been prima facie obvious in view of one another. Thus, the instant claims as written are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights