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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 12/30/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 19 is amended, claims 1-11 are cancelled and claims 12-22 are pending. Currently, claims 12-18 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
Previous claim objection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and comments.
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 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tung et al. (US 2008/0113472 A1).
Claim 19: Tung teaches a method of forming a film 3’ onto a back surface of a wafer 42 (Fig. 4, Fig. 5b and [0031]), wherein the film 3’ comprises a resin layer 34 and a plurality of spheroids 363, first balls 362 and second balls 361 embedded in the resin layer 34 (Fig. 3b and [0027]). The film 3’ meets the claimed carrier layer, the wafer 42 meets the claimed semiconductor wafer, the resin layer 34 meets the claimed matrix structure and the plurality of spheroids 363 meets the claimed ellipsoid structure. Tung teaches a length of the long axis of the spheroids 363 is preferably equal to a diameter of the first balls 362 [0027]. Drawings of Tung suggest the long axis of the spheroids 363 is in a thickness direction of the film 3’ (Figs. 3b, 5b, 5c and 5d). Furthermore, Tung teaches during the process of mounting a first chip 422 on a carrier 52 through the film 3’, if the spheroids 363 are just right above components 522, they can rotate due to their arc shape, as shown in FIG. 5e, such that the first chip 422 can be flatly mounted on the carrier 52 [0034]; therefore, it is interpreted that the long axis of the spheroids 363 in the film 3’ before being mounted on the carrier 52 is in the thickness direction of the film 3’.
Claim 21: Tung teaches the resin layer 34 can be made of and epoxy resin or a phenol resin [0026] and spheroids 363 are made of a rubber [0026].
Claim 22: Tung teaches a length of the long axis of the spheroids 363 is preferably equal to a diameter of first balls 362 [0027].
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al. (US 2008/0113472 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2007/0082019 A1).
Tung teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 20: Tung does teach the method used to form the film 3’ on the wafer 42. However, Huang teaches, in a conventional semiconductor process, a coting solution can be applied a large flat surface to form a uniform coating, and the coated wafer then can be cut into small pieces, wherein the uniform coating can be formed using an inkjet printing method to achieve a uniform layering [0186]. Tung and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the formation of a layer on a wafer art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ink jet printing process of Huang with the invention of Tung, and the motivation for combining would be, as Huang suggested, to provide a uniform layering [0186].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument is based on that the newly added limitation of claim 19 has not been taught by Tung and/or Huang. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Tung teaches a length of the long axis of the spheroids 363 is preferably equal to a diameter of the first balls 362 [0027]. Drawings of Tung suggest the long axis of the spheroids 363 is in a thickness direction of the film 3’ (Figs. 3b, 5b, 5c and 5d). Furthermore, Tung teaches during the process of mounting a first chip 422 on a carrier 52 through the film 3’, if the spheroids 363 are just right above components 522, they can rotate due to their arc shape, as shown in FIG. 5e, such that the first chip 422 can be flatly mounted on the carrier 52 [0034]; therefore, it is interpreted that the long axis of the spheroids 363 in the film 3’ before being mounted on the carrier 52 is in the thickness direction of the film 3’. Thus, the newly added limitation of claim 19 has not been taught by the reference of Tung.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
April 17, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights