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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, replace “the contact terminal pads” with –the electrically conductive contact terminal pads--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "channels" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, line 2, replace “the contact terminal pads” with –the electrically conductive contact terminal pads--.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahle (US 2004/0175864).
Regarding claim 1, Mahle discloses an integrated circuit comprising:
a lead frame 10 (fig. 3, ¶0021) having electrically conductive contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3);
a die 30 centrally disposed in the lead frame 10 (fig. 3);
wire bonds 32 (fig. 3) electrically connecting the die 30 to the electrically conductive terminal pads (labeled fig. 3);
a mold compound 34 (fig. 3) encapsulating the die 30 and the wire bonds 32, a bottom surface of the mold compound 34 being substantially flush with a bottom surface of the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3); and
a channel 16 (labeled fig. 3) defined in the bottom surface of the mold compound around a periphery of the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mahle discloses that wherein the channel 16 overlaps the mold compound 34 and the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Mahle discloses that the device further comprising a lead lock 28 (fig. 3, ¶0026) to bond the lead frame 10 to the mold compound 34 (fig. 3).
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 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahle (US 2004/0175864).
Regarding claim 3, Mahle discloses wherein the channel (labeled fig. 3) has a height and a width.
Mahle does not disclose a height in a range of 40-50um and a width in a range of 55-75um.
However, the height in a range of 40-50um and the width in a range of 55-75um 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the channel has a height in a range of 40-50um and a width in a range of 55-75um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 4, Mahle discloses wherein the width of the channel (labeled fig. 3) overlaps the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3) and overlaps the mold compound 34 adjacent to the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3).
Mahle does not disclose the width of the channel overlaps the contact terminal pads in a range of 15-25um and overlaps the mold compound adjacent to the contact terminal pads in a range of 40-50um.
However, a range of 15-25um and overlaps the mold compound adjacent to the contact terminal pads in a range of 40-50um 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the width of the channel overlaps the contact terminal pads in a range of 15-25um and overlaps the mold compound adjacent to the contact terminal pads in a range of 40-50um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 7, Mahle discloses wherein the lead lock 28 (fig. 3, ¶0026).
Mahle does not disclose the lead lock has a thickness of approximately 100um.
However, the lead lock has a thickness of approximately 100um 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the lead lock has the thickness of approximately 100um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Claims 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahle (US 2004/0175864) in view of Chang (US 2020/0402893).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in details above, Mahle substantially discloses all the limitation as claimed above. Mahle also discloses the channel (labeled fig. 3) is filled with an under-fill material (labeled fig. 3).
Mahle does not disclose a printed circuit board due to a coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch between the mold compound and the printed circuit board.
However, Chang discloses a device comprising: the channel (labeled fig. 3) is filled with an under-fill material (labeled fig. 3) to relieve stress between the integrated circuit and a printed circuit board 40 (fig. 3, ¶0049) due to a coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch between the mold compound 302 and the printed circuit board 40 (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
525
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the under-fill material to relieve stress between the integrated circuit and a printed circuit board due to a coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch between the mold compound and the printed circuit board, as taught by Chang, in order to increase the device functionality for the semiconductor package.
The recitation of “during a curing process” is a process limitation which depends upon the product claim of independent claim 1. All the process limitations in claim 5 do not carry weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Mahle discloses a die pad 12 (fig. 3) having an exposed pad that may flush with a bottom surface of the mold compound 34 to dissipate heat from the integrated circuit (fig. 3); the die 30 is attached to a top planar surface of the die pad 12 (fig. 3).
Mahle does not disclose a die attach.
However, Chang discloses the device further comprising a die pad 210 having an exposed pad that may not be flush with a bottom surface of the mold compound 302 to dissipate heat from the integrated circuit, wherein the die 10 is attached to a top planar surface of the die pad 210 (fig. 3) via a die attach (e.g. a layer between die 10 and die pad 210 in fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the die attach, as taught by Chang, in order to firmly secure the contact between the die to the top surface of the die pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Mahle fails to disclose a channel defined in the bottom surface of the mold compound around a periphery of the electrically conductive contact terminal pads.
This argument is respectfully traversed because Mahle discloses a channel 16 (labeled fig. 3) defined in the bottom surface of the mold compound around a periphery of the contact terminal pads (labeled fig. 3).
Claim 2 is dependent upon rejected independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the height in a range of 40-50um and the width in a range of 55-75um 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the channel has a height in a range of 40-50um and a width in a range of 55-75um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 4, a range of 15-25um and overlaps the mold compound adjacent to the contact terminal pads in a range of 40-50um 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the width of the channel overlaps the contact terminal pads in a range of 15-25um and overlaps the mold compound adjacent to the contact terminal pads in a range of 40-50um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 5, it is obvious to combine the references of Mahle and Chang because in this case, Mahle and Chang teach analogous devices and are in the same field of endeavors. Chang discloses a device comprising: the channel (labeled fig. 3) is filled with an under-fill material (labeled fig. 3) to relieve stress between the integrated circuit and a printed circuit board 40 (fig. 3, ¶0049) due to a coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch between the mold compound 302 and the printed circuit board 40 (fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the under-fill material to relieve stress between the integrated circuit and a printed circuit board due to a coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch between the mold compound and the printed circuit board, as taught by Chang, in order to increase the device functionality for the semiconductor package.
The recitation of “during a curing process” is a process limitation which depends upon the product claim of independent claim 1. All the process limitations in claim 5 do not carry weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, the lead lock has a thickness of approximately 100um 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the lead lock has the thickness of approximately 100um for improving an efficiency and design flexibility in mounting semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 8, it is obvious to combine the references of Mahle and Chang because in this case, Mahle and Chang teach analogous devices and are in the same field of endeavors. Chang discloses the device further comprising a die pad 210 having an exposed pad that may not be flush with a bottom surface of the mold compound 302 to dissipate heat from the integrated circuit, wherein the die 10 is attached to a top planar surface of the die pad 210 (fig. 3) via a die attach (e.g. a layer between die 10 and die pad 210 in fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Mahle by having the die attach, as taught by Chang, in order to firmly secure the contact between the die to the top surface of the die pad.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 9-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection as set forth in the Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of all the limitations recited in the claim 9 of an electronic device assembly including: an under-fill material disposed between the bottom surface of the mold compound and a top surface of the printed circuit board, wherein the under-fill material is disposed in the channels. Therefore, the overall structure of the electronic device assembly is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 DILINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1712. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-6pm EST).
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, Kimberly Rizkallah can be reached on 571-272-2402. 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.
/DILINH P NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
Prosecution Insights