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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-32 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 15* and 28 are currently amended.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-14 and 16-21 are original.
Claims 11, 22-27 and 29-32 are previously presented.
Claims 1-32 are rejected herein.
* [Note, claim 15 appears to be erroneously labeled as “Previously present” in the Listing of Claims filed 10/23/2025, while nevertheless showing amendments currently being made with strike-though and underlining. For examination purposes, claim 15 shall be deemed as “Currently amended.”]
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/23/2025, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC §112 in the prior Office Action dated 05/23/2025 are withdrawn.
Otherwise, Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Akira fails to teach or suggest, ‘a first die pad thermally and electrically coupled to at least one lead of the first set of leads" & "a temperature sensor coupled to the first die pad’, as required by Claim 1.” Remarks/Arguments, page 13. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the Examiner has determined that “Akira's extension part (15) = ‘a first die pad (15) coupled (e.g., via elements 14, 13, 2a and 2e) to at least one of the first set of leads (2b)’ (OA dated 05/23/2025, p. 9, lines 6-7).” Remarks/Arguments, page 12. However, in view of Applicant’s current amendments to claim 1, element 15 of Akira is no longer being read on the claimed first die pad, rather element 2a of Akira is now being read on the first die pad of claim 1. Notably, the first die pad (2a) of Akira is “electrically coupled” to the first set of leads (2b), e.g., via element 2e. Moreover, the temperature sensor (7) of Akira is coupled to the first die pad (2a) as required by amended claim 1, e.g., via elements 13, 14 and 15.
Applicant further argues that claims 9 and 11-13 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claim 1. Remarks/Arguments, page 13. This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 1 has not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that “Akira fails to teach or suggest, ‘mounting a temperature sensor to a thermally and electrically conductive first die pad, a first set of leads extending away from the first die pad’, as required by Claim 15.” Remarks/Arguments, page 15. This argument is not persuasive.
In support of the foregoing argument regarding claim 15, Applicant contends that “as can be seen in Akira FIG.2 below, there is no electrical connection between direct attachment between separate temperature sensor 7 and the 1st frame portion 2a.” Remarks/Arguments, page 14. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an “electrical connection” between the temperature sensor and the first set of leads, and “direct attachment” of the temperature sensor to the first die pad) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Notably, the first die pad (15) of Akira is made of metal and hence is electrically conductive as claimed in claim 15. See, e.g., paragraph [0023]. Additionally, as shown in Akira (see, e.g., FIG. 2), the first set of leads (2b) extend away from the first die pad (15), e.g., the first set of leads (2b) extend leftward and upward in a direction away from the first die pad (15). Importantly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 15 merely requires that: (i) the first die pad is electrically conductive; and (ii) the first set of leads extend in some direction away from the first die pad – i.e., there is no requirement that the first die pad is electrically connected to the first set of leads or that the first set of leads are directly attached to the first die pad.
Applicant further argues that claims 16, 20 and 27 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claim 15. Remarks/Arguments, page 15. This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 15 has not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 27, Applicant argues that “Examiner determines that first die pad 15 and second die pad 2c are in the same plane P (OA dated 05/23/2025 p. 13, lines 7-10)” and that “Akira FIG.2, however, does not support Examiner's determination” and that “Akira clearly fails to teach or suggest, ‘wherein the second die pad is in a same plane as the first die pad’, as required by Claim 27” and that “Examiner's determination is supposition not supported by fact which is little more than improper hindsight reconsideration.” Remarks/Arguments, pages 15 and 16. This argument is not persuasive.
First, that the plane (P) exists is not supposition, rather it is fact.
Second, claim 27 has been rejected as anticipated by the prior art. A so-called “improper hindsight” argument is not germane to an anticipation rejection, but is only relevant to obviousness type rejections.
Third, under the BRI, the claimed plane is not limited to any particular spatial orientation nor is it required that the entirety of each of the first and second die pads be in the claimed plane. Rather, under the BRI, all that is required is that some plane (e.g., having any spatial orientation) exists, such that at least some part of the first die pad and some part of the second die reside in the plane to some extent at some point in space. The plane (P) indicated in the annotated FIG. 2 of Akira herein clearly reads on such a claimed plane.
Applicant further argues that “FIG. 2 of Akira clearly shows that there are no leads extending away from extension part 15.” This argument is not persuasive. FIG. 2 of Akira clear shows that the leads (2b) extend in directions leftward and upward away from part (15). Under the BRI, there is no requirement that the claimed first set of leads is directly attached to the claimed first die pad.
Regarding claim 28, the Application argues that “Akira fails to teach or suggest, ‘a first thermally and electrically conductive die pad coupled to at least one of the first set of leads’ & ‘a temperature sensor directly attached to the first thermally and electrically conductive die pad’, as required by Claim 28.” Remarks/Arguments, page 17. This argument is not persuasive.
In support of the foregoing argument regarding claim 28, Applicant contends that “as can be seen in Akira FIG.2 below, there is no electrical connection between direct attachment between separate temperature sensor 7 and 1st frame portion 2a.” Remarks/Arguments, page 17. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an “electrical connection” between the temperature sensor and frame portion and direct attachment between the temperature sensor and frame portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Notably, the first die pad (15) of Akira is made of metal and hence is thermally and electrically conductive as claimed in claim 28. See, e.g., paragraph [0023]. Additionally, as shown in Akira (see, e.g., FIG. 2), the temperature sensor (7) is directly attached to the first thermally and electrically conductive die pad (15) as claimed in claim 28. Importantly, under the BRI, claim 28 merely requires that: (i) the first die pad is thermally and electrically conductive; and (ii) the temperature sensor is directly attached to the first die pad – i.e., there is no requirement that the first die pad is thermally or electrically connected to the first set of leads or that the first set of leads are directly attached to the first die pad.
Regarding claim 29, Applicant argues that “Akira fails to teach or suggest, ‘wherein a portion of the first die pad and the second die pad is not covered by the mold compound on a same surface of the semiconductor package’, as required by Claim 29.” Remarks/Arguments, page 18. This argument is not persuasive.
Notably, under the BRI, the claimed “same surface of the semiconductor package” is not required to be planar, but rather the claimed surface can have any shape. Accordingly, the entire bottom surface of the semiconductor package shown in FIG. 2 of Akira, e.g., including the bottom side of the first die pad (15) and the portion (e.g., portion (PT) indicated in annotated FIG. 2 of Akira herein) of the bottom side of the second die pad (2c), reads on the claimed “same surface of the semiconductor package” in claim 29. Notably, when so read, the bottom side of the first die pad (15) and the portion (PT) of the bottom side of the second die pad (2c) are on the same surface.
Applicant further argues that claims 30-32 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 1, 15 and 28, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, page 19. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 1, 15 and 28 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claims 2, 3 and 18 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 1, 2 and 15, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, pages 21-22. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 1, 2 and 15 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that they “could find to teaching or suggestion of placing a ‘temperature-sensitive capacitor’ within a semiconductor package” and thus “there is no motivation for Examiner's purported combination.” Remarks/Arguments, pages 21-22. This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Akira teaches a temperature sensor (7) within a semiconductor package (FIG.2). Khan teaches a temperature sensor that includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor. See, e.g., Abstract and FIG. 1. The combined teachings of these references would have suggested, to those of ordinary skill in the art, placing a temperature-sensitive capacitor within a semiconductor package. The motivation for combining these teachings is, for example, to provide a fast, highly sensitive sensor integrated within a semiconductor package to detect a wide range of temperatures with good sensing ability and stable sensing responses over a broad range of temperatures and excellent reproducibility characteristic. See, e.g., Title and Abstract of Khan.
Applicant further argues that claims 2, 4-5 and 7 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 1 and 2, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, pages 23-25. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 1 and 2 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Maserjian for placing a temperature sensor within a semiconductor package” and thus “there is no motivation for Examiner's purported combination.” Remarks/Arguments, pages 23-25. This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Akira teaches a temperature sensor (7) within a semiconductor package (FIG.2). Maserjian teaches a temperature sensor that includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor. See, e.g., Abstract and FIG. 1. The combined teachings of these references would have suggested, to those of ordinary skill in the art, placing a temperature-sensitive capacitor within a semiconductor package. The motivation for combining these teachings is, for example, to provide a fast-responding temperature sensor integrated within a semiconductor package with reliable characteristics that can sense small and rapid temperature changes. See, e.g., column 2, lines 9-15 and column 5, lines 69 and 70 of Maserjian.
Applicant further argues that claim 6 is allowable in light of its ultimate dependence from claim 5. Remarks/Arguments, page 27. This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 5 has not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in the dependent claim 6 further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claim 8 is allowable in light of its ultimate dependence from claim 1. Remarks/Arguments, page 28. This argument is not persuasive. Notably, claim 1 has not been found allowable.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant also argues that “Akira fails to teach or suggest, ‘wherein the temperature sensor is mounted to the first die pad via a thermally conductive die attach material’, as required by Claim 8.” Remarks/Arguments, page 29. This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Akira discloses a temperature sensor (7) mounted to a first die pad (2a) (e.g., via elements 13, 14 and 15). Fu discloses a thermally conductive adhesive including metal particles (e.g., metal “filler”) useful for application in electronic components. See, e.g., Abstract and section 1. Introduction, on pages 493 and 494. The combined teachings of these references would have suggested, to those of ordinary skill in the art, using a thermally conductive die attach material (e.g., the adhesive of Fu) to attach the temperature sensor (7) to element 15 of Akira. Accordingly, the temperature sensor (7) is mounted to the first die pad (2a) via a thermally conductive die attach material (i.e., the material of Fu) and elements 13, 14 and 15. The motivation for combining these teachings is, for example, in order to use a known material for its intended purpose to create a mounting and/or attachment that provides good thermal connection and/or conductivity with the temperature sensor.
Applicant further argues that claims 17 and 24 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 15 and 8, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, pages 29-30. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 15 and 8 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claim 10 is allowable in light of its ultimate dependence from claim 1. Remarks/Arguments, pages 31-32. This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 1 has not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in the dependent claim 10 further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claims 14 and 21 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 1 and 15, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, pages 33-34. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 1 and 15 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claim 19 is allowable in light of its ultimate dependence from claim 18. Remarks/Arguments, page 35. This argument is not persuasive. First, claim 18 has not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in the dependent claim 19 further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Applicant further argues that claims 22-23 and 25-26 are allowable in light of their ultimate dependence from claims 1 and 15, respectively. Remarks/Arguments, page 37. This argument is not persuasive. First, claims 1 and 15 have not been found allowable. Second, Applicant fails to argue with any particularity how any limitation recited in any of the dependent claims further distinguishes such claim patentably over the cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 20 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira (JP 2009-252885), as evidenced by Wang (Wang C, Sun Q, Zhao L, Jia J, Yao L, Peng Z. Mechanical and Dielectric Strength of Laminated Epoxy Dielectric Graded Materials. Polymers (Basel). 2020 Mar 9;12(3):622. doi: 10.3390/polym12030622. PMID: 32182854; PMCID: PMC7182947).
Note: while the rejection(s) herein are made based upon and/or in view of Akira, reference herein shall be made to the translation thereof already in the record.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: textbox (PT)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (ES)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ES)][AltContent: textbox (ES)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ES)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (8’’)][AltContent: textbox (8’)]
PNG
media_image1.png
665
1171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 2 OF AKIRA
Regarding claim 1, Akira discloses (see generally, e.g., annotated FIG. 2 herein):
A semiconductor package (FIG. 2) comprising:
a first set of leads (2b) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4);
a first die pad (2a) thermally and electrically coupled (e.g., via element 2e) to at least one lead (2b) of the first set of leads (2b);
a temperature sensor (7) coupled to the first die pad (2a) (e.g., via elements 13, 14 and 15);
a second set of leads (2d) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4);
a semiconductor die (6);
a first electrical connection (8’) between the temperature sensor (7) and the semiconductor die (6);
a second electrical connection (8’’) between the semiconductor die (6) and the second set of leads (2d); and
mold compound (12) at least partially covering the temperature sensor (7), the semiconductor die (6), the first set of leads (2b) and the second set of leads (2d); and
wherein the mold (12) compound physically separates the semiconductor die (6) from the temperature sensor (7) and the first set of leads (2b).
Regarding claim 9, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1,
wherein the first set of leads (2b) are on a first side (i.e., the left side) of the semiconductor package, and
wherein the second set of leads (2d) are opposite the first side on a second side (i.e., the right side) of the semiconductor package.
Regarding claim 11, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor die (6) is electrically isolated [e.g., by mold compound (12)] from the first set of leads (2b).
Regarding claim 12, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1, wherein the first set of leads (2b) and the second set of leads (2d) extend beyond external surfaces (ES) of the mold compound (12).
Regarding claim 13, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 12, wherein exposed portions of the first set of leads (2b) and the second set of leads (2d) are bent in a common direction (e.g., upward) beyond the external surfaces (ES) of the mold compound (12).
Regarding claim 15, Akira discloses (see generally, e.g., annotated FIG. 2 herein):
A method of forming a semiconductor package (FIG. 2) comprising:
mounting a temperature sensor (7) to a thermally and electrically conductive first die pad (15) (note, as disclosed in paragraph [0023] element 15 is made a metal, i.e., a thermally and electrically conductive material), a first set of leads (2b) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4) extending away from the first die pad (15) [note, the first set of lead (2b) extend horizontally leftward and vertically upward away from the die pad (15)];
mounting a semiconductor die (6) to a second die pad (2c);
forming a first electrical connection (8’) between the temperature sensor (7) and the semiconductor die (6);
forming a second electrical connection (8’’) between the semiconductor die (6) and a second set of leads (2d) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4); and
molding a dielectric mold compound (12) to at least partially cover the temperature sensor (7), the semiconductor die (6), the first set of leads (2b) and the second set of leads (2d) such that the dielectric mold compound (12) physically separates the semiconductor die (6) from the temperature sensor (7) and the first set of leads (2b).
Note, the mold compound (12) of Akira is disclosed as an “epoxy resin.” See, e.g., paragraph [0009]. Epoxy resin is considered in the art as a dielectric material. As evidence thereof, see, e.g., the first paragraph of the Introduction on page 1 of Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Akira discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the first die pad (15) is coupled to [e.g., via elements 2a, 2e, 13 and 14] at least one of the first set of leads (2b).
Regarding claim 20, Akira discloses:
The method of claim 15,
wherein forming the first electrical connection (8’) between the temperature sensor (7) and the semiconductor die (6) includes forming a first set of one or more wire bonds (8’) between the semiconductor die (6) and the temperature sensor (7), and
wherein forming the second electrical connection (8’’) between the semiconductor die (6) and the second set of leads (2d) includes forming a second set of one or more wire bonds (8’’) between the semiconductor die (6) and the second set of leads (2d).
Regarding claim 27, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 15, wherein the second die pad (2c) is in a same plane (P) as the first die pad (15).
Note, the plane (P) (i.e., defined by the dashed line as one axis of the plane and the perpendicular direction out of the page as the other axis of the plane) crosses both the second die pad (2c) and the first die pad (15), and as such, the second die pad (2c) and the first die pad (15) are both in the plane (P) to some extent at some location.
Regarding claim 28, Akira discloses (see generally, e.g., annotated FIG. 2 herein):
A semiconductor package (FIG. 2) comprising:
a first set of leads (2b) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4);
a first thermally and electrically conductive die pad (15) (note, as disclosed in paragraph [0023] element 15 is made a metal, i.e., a thermally and electrically conductive material) coupled (e.g., via elements 2a, 2e, 13 and 14) to at least one of the first set of leads (2b);
a temperature sensor (7) directly attached to the first thermally and electrically conductive die pad (15);
a second set of leads (2d) (see also, e.g., FIG. 4);
a second die pad (2c);
a semiconductor die (6) attached to the second die pad (2c);
a first electrical connection (8’) between the temperature sensor (7) and the semiconductor die (6);
a second electrical connection (8’’) between the semiconductor die (6) and the second set of leads (2d); and
mold compound (12) at least partially covering the temperature sensor (7), the semiconductor die (6), the first set of leads (2b) and the second set of leads (2d), and at least portions of the first die pad (15) and the second die pad (2c);
wherein the mold compound (12) physically separates the semiconductor die (6) from the temperature sensor (7) and the first set of leads (2b).
Regarding claim 29, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 28, wherein a portion (i.e., bottom surface of the first die pad (15) and the bottom surface of the portion (PT) of the second die pad (2c)) of the first die pad (15) and the second die pad (2c) is not covered by the mold compound (12) on a same surface (i.e., the bottom surface) of the semiconductor package (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 30, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1, wherein the first set of leads (2b) are enabled to sense temperature from a heat source external to the semiconductor package.
Note, the first set of leads (2b) extend external to the semiconductor package, e.g., outside the mold compound (12). Accordingly, the first set of leads (2b) are subject to a heat source (e.g., the ambient environment outside the mold compound (12)) and hence are “enabled” to sense temperature to which the first set of leads (2b) are exposed.
Regarding claim 31, Akira discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the first set of leads (2b) are enabled to sense temperature from a heat source external to the semiconductor package.
Note, the first set of leads (2b) extend external to the semiconductor package, e.g., outside the mold compound (12). Accordingly, the first set of leads (2b) are subject to a heat source (e.g., the ambient environment outside the mold compound (12)) and hence are “enabled” to sense temperature to which the first set of leads (2b) are exposed.
Regarding claim 32, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 28, wherein the first set of leads (2b) are enabled to sense temperature from a heat source external to the semiconductor package.
Note, the first set of leads (2b) extend external to the semiconductor package, e.g., outside the mold compound (12). Accordingly, the first set of leads (2b) are subject to a heat source (e.g., the ambient environment outside the mold compound (12)) and hence are “enabled” to sense temperature to which the first set of leads (2b) are exposed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2, 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied, respectively, to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Khan (M. R. R. Khan and S. -W. Kang, "Fast, Highly Sensitive Interdigitated Capacitor Sensor to Detect Wide Range of Temperatures Using Graphene-Oxide-Containing Dielectric Membrane," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 2667-2674, 1 April1, 2018, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2018.2807395).
Regarding claim 2, Akira discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1.
Akira does not explicitly disclose that the temperature sensor includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khan discloses a temperature sensor that includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor. See, e.g., Abstract and FIG. 1.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the interdigitated capacitor (IDC)-based temperature sensor taught by Khan as the temperature sensor (7) in Akira according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide a fast, highly sensitive sensor integrated within a semiconductor package to detect a wide range of temperatures with good sensing ability and stable sensing responses over a broad range of temperatures and excellent reproducibility characteristic. See, e.g., Title and Abstract of Khan.
Regarding claim 3, Akira in view of Khan as applied to claim 2 above discloses the semiconductor package of claim 2.
Khan further discloses that the temperature-sensitive capacitor includes interdigitated electrodes (see, e.g., electrodes of FIG. 1) for capacitance measurement, the interdigitated electrodes separated by a dielectric material (see, e.g., sensing membrane of FIG. 1).
Note: in Khan, the sensing membrane is disclosed as a “dielectric/sensing membrane” (page 2668, column 1, section I. Introduction) and “Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an IDC consisting of an IDE and a temperature-sensitive dielectric material (such as graphene oxide) applied to the IDE” (page 2668, columns 1 and 2, section II. Theory and Working Principle).
Regarding claim 18, Akira discloses the method of claim 15.
Akira does not explicitly disclose that the temperature sensor includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor with interdigitated electrodes for capacitance measurement, the interdigitated electrodes separated by a dielectric material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khan discloses an IDC-based temperature sensor that includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor (FIG. 1) with interdigitated electrodes (see, e.g., electrodes shown in FIG. 1) for capacitance measurement, the interdigitated electrodes separated by a dielectric material (see, e.g., sensing membrane shown in FIG. 1). See also, e.g., Abstract.
Note: in Khan, the sensing membrane is disclosed as a “dielectric/sensing membrane” (page 2668, column 1, section I. Introduction) and “Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of an IDC consisting of an IDE and a temperature-sensitive dielectric material (such as graphene oxide) applied to the IDE” (page 2668, columns 1 and 2, section II. Theory and Working Principle).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the interdigitated capacitor (IDC)-based temperature sensor taught by Khan as the temperature sensor (7) in Akira according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide a fast, highly sensitive sensor integrated within a semiconductor package to detect a wide range of temperatures with good sensing ability and stable sensing responses over a broad range of temperatures and excellent reproducibility characteristic. See, e.g., Title and Abstract of Khan.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Maserjian (US 3676754 A).
Regarding claim 2, Akira discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1.
Akira does not explicitly disclose that the temperature sensor includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maserjian disclose a temperature sensor that includes a temperature-sensitive capacitor. See, e.g., FIG. 1 and column 2, lines 9-15.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the temperature sensor of the thin-film capacitor-type taught by Maserjian as the temperature sensor (7) in Akira according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide a fast-responding temperature sensor integrated within a semiconductor package with reliable characteristics that can sense small and rapid temperature changes. See, e.g., column 2, lines 9-15 and column 5, lines 69 and 70 of Maserjian.
Regarding claim 4, Akira in view of Maserjian as applied to claim 2 discloses the semiconductor package of claim 2.
Maserjian further discloses that the temperature-sensitive capacitor is a thin-film capacitor. See, e.g., FIG. 1 and column 2, lines 9-15.
Regarding claim 5, Akira in view of Maserjian as applied to claim 2 discloses the semiconductor package of claim 2.
Maserjian further discloses that the temperature-sensitive capacitor includes a ceramic dielectric material (15) separating conductive elements (12, 19) of the temperature-sensitive capacitor.
Note: element (15) of Maserjian is disclosed as zirconium dioxide (see, e.g., column 3, lines 6-9). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize zirconium dioxide as a ceramic dielectric material.
Regarding claim 7, Akira in view of Maserjian as applied to claim 2 discloses the semiconductor package of claim 2.
Maserjian further discloses that the temperature-sensitive capacitor includes a dielectric material (15) including Al2O3. See, e.g., column 3, lines 6-11.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Maserjian as applied to claims 5, and further in view of Engelmark (F. Engelmark, J. Westlinder, G. F. Iriarte, I. V. Katardjiev and J. Olsson, "Electrical characterization of AlN MIS and MIM structures," in IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1214-1219, May 2003, doi: 10.1109/TED.2003.813231).
Regarding claim 6, Akira in view of Maserjian as applied to claim 5 discloses the semiconductor package of claim 5.
While Maserjian discloses the use of various materials for the primary dielectric of its temperature-sensitive capacitor (see, e.g., column 3, lines 6-11), Maserjian does not explicitly disclose that the ceramic dielectric material includes aluminum nitride (AlN).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Engelmark discloses a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure with aluminum nitride (AlN) between two metal electrodes. See, e.g., section III. Results, subsection B. MIM Structures, on page 1217.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used AlN in layer (15) of the temperature-sensitive capacitor of Maserjian as taught by Engelmark according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide good, well-defined and/or substantially linear temperature-dependent capacitance which varies measurably over a reasonably broad temperature range. See, e.g., FIG. 9 and page 1218, column 1 of Engelmark.
Claims 8, 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied respectively to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Fu (Yuan-Xiang Fu, Zhuo-Xian He, Dong-Chuan Mo, Shu-Shen Lu, Thermal conductivity enhancement with different fillers for epoxy resin adhesives, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 66, Issues 1–2, pp. 493-498, 2014).
Regarding claim 8, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1, further comprising:
a second die pad (2c) coupled to at least one of the second set of leads (2d); and
wherein the semiconductor die (6) is mounted to the second die pad (2c).
Akira does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature sensor is mounted to the first die pad via a thermally conductive die attach material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fu discloses a thermally conductive adhesive including metal particles (e.g., metal “filler”) useful for application in electronic components. See, e.g., Abstract and section 1. Introduction, on pages 493 and 494.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the temperature sensor of Akira with the die attach adhesive taught by Fu according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known material for its intended purpose to create a mounting and/or attachment that provides good thermal connection and/or conductivity with the temperature sensor (7).
Regarding claim 17, Akira as applied to claim 15 discloses the method of claim 15.
Akira does not explicitly disclose that mounting the temperature sensor to the first die pad includes securing the temperature sensor on the first die pad with a die attach adhesive, wherein the die attach adhesive includes metal particles.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fu discloses a thermally conductive adhesive including metal particles (e.g., metal “filler”) useful for application in electronic components. See, e.g., Abstract and section 1. Introduction, on pages 493 and 494.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the temperature sensor (7) of Akira to the first die pad (15) of Akira with the die attach adhesive taught by Fu according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to use a known material for its intended purpose to create a mounting and/or attachment that provides a good thermal connection and/or conductivity between the temperature sensor (7) and the first die pad (15).
Regarding claim 24, Akira in view of Fu as applied to claim 8 discloses the semiconductor package of claim 8.
Akira further discloses wherein the second die pad (2c) is in a same plane (P) as the first die pad (2a).
Note, the plane (P) (i.e., defined by the dashed line as one axis of the plane and the perpendicular direction out of the page as the other axis of the plane) crosses both the second die pad (2c) and the first die pad (2a), and as such, the second die pad (2c) and the first die pad (2a) are both in the plane (P) to some extent at some location.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chong (US 20120074546 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Akira discloses:
The semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1,
wherein the first electrical connection (8’) includes wire bonds (see, e.g., FIG. 2) extending between the temperature sensor (7) and the semiconductor die (6), and
wherein the second electrical connection (8’’) includes wire bonds (see, e.g., FIG. 2) extending between the semiconductor die (6) and the second set of leads (2d).
Akira does not explicitly disclose the claimed sensor bond pads, first set of bond pads or second set of bond pads.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chong discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 1a) the use of bond pads (95) for electrically attaching bonding wires (60) to elements such as dies (30) and a temperature sensor including die (50), where the bonding wires (60) extend between respective elements such as the dies (30), the temperature sensor including die (50) and leads (55).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sensor bond pads on the temperature sensor (7) and first and second sets of bond pads on the semiconductor die (6) of Akira as claimed in accordance with the teachings of Chong according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide a location and/or contact point for creating reliable and/or otherwise suitable electrical connections to the respective temperature sensor (7) and/or semiconductor die (6) by the respective wires and/or wire bonds (8’, 8’’).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied, respectively, to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Aberra (US 20150185083 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Akira discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor die (6) is an integrated circuit including a controller (see, e.g., paragraph [0026] where the semiconductor die (6) is disclosed as a “control integrated circuit” for “temperature measurement”) configured to receive an analog input from the temperature sensor (7), the analog input representing a temperature of the temperature sensor (7).
Note, the temperature sensor (7) is disclosed as a thermistor. See, e.g., paragraph [0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a thermistor outputs an analog signal representing a temperature of the temperature sensor.
Akira does not explicitly disclose that the semiconductor die outputs a digital signal representative of the temperature of the temperature sensor via the second set of leads.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aberra discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 1 and Abstract) a temperature sensor device (100) that has a temperature sensor (110) configured to provide an analog signal corresponding to a measured temperature, an analog-to-digital converter (130) that receives the analog signal and outputs corresponding temperature data in a digital format so as to be available in a data register (142) coupled to the analog-to-digital converter (130).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the semiconductor die (6) of Akira to output a digital signal representative of the temperature of the temperature sensor (7) via the second set of leads (2d) in accordance with the teachings of Aberra according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to provide digital temperature measurements output, available and/or otherwise readable from outside the semiconductor package.
Regarding claim 21, Akira discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the semiconductor die (6) is an integrated circuit including a controller (see, e.g., paragraph [0026] where the semiconductor die (6) is disclosed as a “control integrated circuit” for “temperature measurement”), the method further comprising:
receiving, with the controller, an analog input from the temperature sensor (7), the analog input representing a temperature of the temperature sensor (7).
Note, the temperature sensor (7) is disclosed as a thermistor. See, e.g., paragraph [0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a thermistor outputs an analog signal representing a temperature of the temperature sensor.
Akira does not explicitly disclose outputting, with the controller, a digital signal representative of the temperature of the temperature sensor via the second set of leads.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aberra discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 1 and Abstract) a temperature sensor device (100) that has a temperature sensor (110) configured to provide an analog signal corresponding to a measured temperature, an analog-to-digital converter (130) that receives the analog signal and outputs corresponding temperature data in a digital format so as to be available in a data register (142) coupled to the analog-to-digital converter (130).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the semiconductor die (6) of Akira to output a digital signal representative of the temperature of the temperature sensor (7) via the second set of leads (2d) in accordance with the teachings of Aberra according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to provide digital temperature measurements output, available and/or otherwise readable from outside the semiconductor package.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira in view of Khan as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Engelmark.
Regarding claim 19, Akira in view of Khan as applied to claim 18 discloses the method of claim 18.
Khan does not explicitly disclose that the dielectric material includes aluminum nitride (AlN).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Engelmark discloses a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure with aluminum nitride (AlN) between two metal electrodes. See, e.g., section III. Results, subsection B. MIM Structures, on page 1217.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used AlN in the sensing membrane and/or as the dielectric material of the temperature-sensitive capacitor of Khan as taught by Engelmark according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide good, well-defined and/or substantially linear temperature-dependent capacitance which varies measurably over a reasonably broad temperature range. See, e.g., FIG. 9 and page 1218, column 1 of Engelmark.
Claims 22-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira as applied respectively to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 20040082109 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
1071
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 4 OF TANAKA
Regarding claim 22, Akira as applied to claim 1 discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1.
Akira does not explicitly disclose, wherein two or more of the first set of leads are directly physically connected to each other.
However, in analogous art, Tanaka discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 4 as annotated herein) a lead frame for a semiconductor package having a mounting plate (30) wherein two or more of the first set of leads (L1, L2) are directly physically connected to each other.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made at least one selected terminal (2b) of Akira include a pair of leads directly physically connected to each other as taught by Tanaka according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide multiple external access and/or connection points to the terminal (2b) of Akira.
Moreover, the duplication of parts normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. The duplication or use of two directly physically connected leads (e.g., as taught by Tanaka) for the selected terminal (2b) of Akira is a routine expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. There is no evidence on the record that at least two leads directly physically connect to one another produces any new and unexpected result as compared to a single lead.
Note, when the aforementioned selected terminal (2b) of Akira (i.e., modified in accordance with the teachings of Tanaka to include a pair of leads directly physically connected to each other) is taken and/or read as the claimed “first set of leads,” then Akira in view of Tanaka discloses wherein two or more of the first set of leads are directly physically connected to each other.
Regarding claim 23, Akira as applied to claim 1 discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 1.
Akira does not explicitly disclose, wherein all of the first set of leads are directly physically connected to each other.
However, in analogous art, Tanaka discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 4 as annotated herein) a lead frame for a semiconductor package having a mounting plate (30) wherein two or more of the first set of leads (L1, L2) are directly physically connected to each other.
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made at least one selected terminal (2b) of Akira include a pair of leads directly physically connected to each other as taught by Tanaka according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to provide multiple external access and/or connection points to the terminal (2b) of Akira.
Moreover, the duplication of parts normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. The duplication or use of two directly physically connected leads (e.g., as taught by Tanaka) for the selected terminal (2b) of Akira is a routine expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. There is no evidence on the record that at least two leads directly physically connect to one another produces any new and unexpected result as compared to a single lead.
Note, when only the aforementioned selected terminal (2b) of Akira (i.e., modified in accordance with the teachings of Tanaka to include a pair of leads directly physically connected to each other) is taken and/or read as the claimed “first set of leads,” then Akira in view of Tanaka discloses wherein all of the first set of leads are directly physically connected to each other.
Regarding claim 25, Akira as applied to claim 15 discloses the semiconductor package (FIG. 2) of claim 15.
Akira do