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 § 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 11, 15-19, 26, 27, 31-34, 28-44, and 46-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Camacho (US 8,993,376).
Regarding claim 11, Camacho et al. discloses a semiconductor package comprising:
leads (120, base substrate or lead frame, Fig. 3a, 3b, 3c) extending in a plane and having opposing first (A, annotated in Fig. 4) and second surfaces (B, annotated in Fig. 4), projections (120a-120l) extending from the first surfaces and out of the plane, each projection including a sidewall and an end surface, each projection having a first width at the end surface and a second width at the first surface less than the first width (shown clearly in Fig. 4 below);
a die (132) having posts (134) coupled to the respective ones of the projections (120g-120l); and
an electrically insulating layer (140) extending over the die and at least portions of the leads.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 11, wherein the end surface of at least one projection is centered on a centerline extending perpendicular from the first surface (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 16, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 11, wherein an end surface of at least one projection is offset from and parallel to the first surface (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 17, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 11, wherein the width decreases continuously from the first width to the second width (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 18, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 11, wherein the end surface extends parallel to the plane (See Fig. 4 above)..
Regarding claim 19, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 11, wherein the projections are spaced laterally from one another along the first surface such that current flows laterally through the leads (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 26, Camacho et al. teaches wherein solder coupling the end surface of each projection to a respective corresponding post has a trapezoidal shape that widens in a direction extending towards the projection (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 27, Camacho et al. a semiconductor package, comprising:
leads (120, base substrate or lead frame, Fig. 3a, 3b, 3c) and a die pad (defined as being formed such that projections extend from [0043] of instant application thus equivalent structure 148 in Fig. 4) with projections (120a-120l) extending away at a perpendicular angle from a first surface of at least some of the leads (120a-120l) and the die pad (148), each projection (120a-120l) having a first width at an end surface and a second width at the first surface less than the first width (as shown in Fig. 4);
a die (132) attached to the projections (120a-120l); and
an insulating layer (140) over the leads (120), the die (132), and the die pad (148).
Regarding claim 31, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 27, wherein the end surface of at least one projection is centered on a centerline extending perpendicular from the first surface (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 32, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 27, wherein an end surface of at least one projection is offset from and parallel to the first surface (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 33, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 27, wherein the width decreases of each of the projections decreases continuously from the first width to the second width (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 34, Camacho et al. teaches the semiconductor package in claim 27, wherein the end surface extends parallel to the plane (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 35, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 27, wherein the projections are spaced laterally from one another along the first surface (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 38, Camacho et al. teaches wherein solder coupling the end surface of each projection to a respective corresponding post has a trapezoidal shape that widens in a direction extending towards the projection (See Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 39, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 11, wherein the projections are made from the same material as the leads (see Figs. 3a-3h and 4).
Regarding claim 40, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 39, wherein the same material is planar conductive material (see Col. 6, lines 63 to Col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 41, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 27, wherein the projections are made from the same material as the leads (see Figs. 3a-3h and 4).
Regarding claim 42, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 41, wherein the same material is planar conductive material (see Col. 6, lines 63 to Col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 43, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 27, wherein the first width is greater than a width of a die post to which the projection is coupled (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 44, Camacho et al. a semiconductor package, comprising:
a die pad (148) with projections (120a-120l) extending away at a perpendicular angle from a first surface of the die pad, each projection having a first width at an end surface and a second width at the first surface less than the first width (as shown in Fig. 4);
a die (132) attached to the projections (120g-120l); and
an insulating layer (140) over the die (132), and the die pad (148).
Regarding claim 46, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in The semiconductor package recited in wherein a width of each of the projections decreases continuously from the first width to the second width (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 47, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 44, wherein the projections are made from the same material as the leads (see Figs. 3a-3h and 4).
Regarding claim 48, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 47, wherein the same material is planar conductive material (see Col. 6, lines 63 to Col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 49, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 44, wherein the first width is greater than a width of a die post to which the projection is coupled.
Regarding claim 50, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 44, wherein the projections are spaced laterally from one another along the first surface such that current flows laterally through the die pad (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 51, Camacho et al. the semiconductor package recited in claim 11, wherein the first width is greater than a width of a die post to which the projection is coupled (Fig. 4).
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.
Claims 12-14, 28-30, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camacho et al. as applied to claims 11, 27, and 44 above, further in view of Chang Chien et al. (US 2012/0119342).
Regarding claims 12, 28, and 45, Camacho et al. discloses a semiconductor package recited in claim 11, but does not specifically disclose the sidewall of the projections (120g-120l) being curved.
Chang Chien et al. discloses a semiconductor package where the projections are etched to create a curved feature (Fig. 1F and 1F’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing of the claimed invention that the structure of the of projection sidewall could curved as taught by Chang Chien et al., because such curvature would be a known alternative to the straight sidewall in Camacho et al. and within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Camacho et al. in view of Chang Chien et al. teaches that the curved sidewall extends directly from the first surface.
Regarding claims 14 and 30, Camacho et al. in view of Chang Chien et al. teaches that the curved sidewall is concave.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camacho et al. as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 22 to 25 recite dimensional features of the projections and posts which are not explicitly taught by Camacho et al.
However, the projection and post length, as well as the diameter and thickness would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on page 10 of the response that “reference number 120 is not, and cannot be considered "leads", as determined by Examiner. Examiner's determination is supposition not supported by fact which is little more than improper hindsight reconsideration which must be withdrawn.” Examiner disagrees, it is clear from Camacho that element 120 and Figures 3a-3h illustrate a process of forming a wafer-level multi-row etched lead frame with different height base leads. The leads (120a, 120b, 120c, 120d, 120e, 120f) are made from the base substrate and thus there is no hindsight consideration.
Applicant further suggests on page 11 of their remarks that “Camacho teaches or suggests, "leadS (120, base substrate or leadframe, Fig. 3a, 3b, 3c) extending in a "plane" ... as there is only one substrate 120. So, if substrate 120 is a lead it is only a singular lead - NOT plural "leads". Examiner's determination is supposition not supported by fact which is little more than improper hindsight reconsideration which must be withdrawn.” Applicant’s position disregards Figures 3e, 3f, 3g, and 3h where the “plane” applicant points out is removed and distinct leads (120a, 120b, 120c, 120d, 120e, 120f) are formed and shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
132
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning on page 12, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant points to part of the references, focusing on Figs. 3a to 3d, but not addressing the reference as a whole teaches the separate leads (120a, 120b, etc.).
On page 13 applicant suggests Examiner “misses or does not appreciate that as of FIG. 3d, the width of projections 120a-120 & 120g-120l at the top surface of remaining substrate 120m is greater than, not less than, the width of the end surface (e.g., top surface) of each of projections 120a-120 & 120g-1201 - which is opposite of the language of Claim 11.” Examiner disagrees. The claim requires “leads (i.e. 120d, 120e, 120f) extending in a plane” with the leads having “opposing first and second surfaces” where “projections (130) extending from first surfaces” and “each projection having a first width (B) at the end surface and a first surface (A) less than the first width (B)” this is represented in the annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
287
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. Applicant contends that there is no “first surface” in Camacho on page 14, but the plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. Examiner’s interpretation of the claims is consistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand. A first surface can be any surface in the structure that examiner defines as a first surface.
Similarly, on page 15, applicant suggests that the prior art does not teach leads extending in a “plane”. As described in applicant’s specification a plane extends through the device much in the same way examiner is contending the plane extends through the device in Camacho as shown above in the annotated Figure.
With respect to arguments on page 16 and claim 15, again as described in applicant’s specification a centerline is not defined in specification and relying on a dictionary it merely a line through the center of something. One of ordinary skill would understand that a projection would have a center point and that a “centerline” would run through it.
Regarding claim 16 and applicant’s arguments on page 17, Figure 4 shows projections the offset and parallel to first surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
225
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the width decreasing is clearly shown where the bottom of 120d is wider than the top of 120d.
Regarding claim 18, as described in applicant’s specification a plane extends through the device and as such the end surface extends parallel to the plane as shown in Figure 4 and above.
With respect to claim 19 on page 18, in response to applicant's argument a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The direction that current flows through a semiconductor device and how it flows is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, a trapezoid is a four-sided polygon with at least one pair of parallel sides, known as the bases, and the other two sides are called the legs. That shape is in multiple places in Figure 4 as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
225
396
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 19 to 26 for claim 27 are a repeat of the arguments on pages 9 to 16 for claim 11 and are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Regarding applicant arguments on page 26 with respect to claim 31 are a repeat of arguments on page 16 of claim 15 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding applicant arguments on page 26 with respect to claim 32 are a repeat of arguments on page 17 of claim 16 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding applicant arguments on pages 26-27 with respect to claim 33 are a repeat of arguments on page 17 of claim 17 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding applicant arguments on page 27 with respect to claim 34 are a repeat of arguments on page 17 of claim 18 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding applicant arguments on page 27 with respect to claim 35 are a repeat of arguments on page 18 of claim 19 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding applicant arguments on pages 27-28 with respect to claim 38 are a repeat of arguments on pages 18 and 19 of claim 26 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding claim 43 on page 29, see Figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
287
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 30 to 32 for claim 44 suggests examiner does not show how Camacho teaches the elements as rebutted above. Applicant’s arguments have been rebutted above.
Regarding applicant arguments on pages 32-33 with respect to claim 46 are a repeat of arguments on page 17 of claim 17 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding claim 49 on page 33, see Figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
287
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant arguments on pages 34-35 with respect to claim 50 are a repeat of arguments on page 18 of claim 19 and are not persuasive for the same reason.
Regarding claim 51 on page 35, see Figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
287
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 36-40 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this instance, the cited references are in the same field of endeavor and the combination yields predictable results, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is properly maintained. Applicants’ arguments regarding lack of motivation, hindsight, and improper combination are not persuasive in view of the cited legal standards and the facts of record.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 40-43 that there is no teaching regarding length, while Camacho does not discuss length, the length disclosed by the applicant is not at all inventive. One of ordinary skill in the art knows that semiconductor packages come in various sizes and types and that between 50 µm to 700 µm are the common industry range for base substrate (leadframe) thickness before etching depending on the material and process used in the manufacturing process. This range is important for understanding the specifications and requirements in various industries and within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 21, 36, and 27 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893