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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 filed 11/25/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicants argue on page 8 that Mizuta in view of Pogge could not reasonably be interpreted to disclose or render obvious:
a side of the packaged semiconductor device includes a plurality of structures protruding away from the semiconductor die. However, a plurality of structures are shown in figs. 2b, there are at least two on the bottoms of 201a and b.
Further, applicants argue that the features are inside the package. However, applicants’ claims does not require that the package include or exclude the carrier substrate, and as such, the claimed features are properly read thereon.
Further, claim 25 is properly read on the features of Noriaki (CN 1351376), as detailed below, included with applicants’ IDS filed April 22, 2026.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected using only references provided in the IDS filed 4.22.2026, and as such this action is hereby made FINAL.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noriaki (CN1351376).
Regarding claim 25.
Noriaki discloses Fig. 21
An apparatus comprising:
a packaged semiconductor device(108 package including molding mounted on substrate 128) comprising:
a semiconductor die(Die shown in Fig. 21 not labeled inside 108);
and a mold compound(108),
in which a side(left and right of 108) of the packaged semiconductor device includes a plurality of structures(122 on each of left and right) protruding away from the semiconductor die(122 protruding away from die in 108).
Regarding claim 27.
Noriaki discloses Fig. 21
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of structures are in at least one of: the mold compound(Fig. 27 122 is in 108), the semiconductor die, or a die pad on which the semiconductor die is mounted.
Regarding claim 28.
Noriaki discloses Fig. 21
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the packaged semiconductor device includes conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die and spaced from the plurality of structures.(terminals 132 coupled to die in 108 and spaced using solder shown in fig. 21 from 122).
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuta (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0053891) in view of Pogge (U.S. Patent No. 5,814,885) further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113325).
Regarding claim 1.
A semiconductor package, comprising:
Mizuta discloses Fig. 5:
a semiconductor die(11) configured to detect a force([0104]);
a mold compound(31) covering the semiconductor die(31 on 11);
Mizuta does not disclose:
and an engagement surface including a pattern of projections adapted to engage with a mounting surface on a member of interest external to the semiconductor package.
In related art, Pogge discloses Fig. 2A:
and an engagement surface(203a) including a pattern of projections(211a 211b 210) adapted to engage with a mounting surface on a member of interest (211a 211b engaging with 205a 205b on 202).
Pogge discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of better mounting and better heat dispensation from the die, and easier self-alignment of the chip when it is installed on the 202 (abstract, col. 4, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to provide the surface topography taught by Pogge on the device of Mizuta for the obvious benefits of easing the alignment of the device.
In related art, Kim discloses:
and an engagement surface including a pattern of projections…external to the semiconductor package. Kim Figs. 5-6. Projections 43 outside of package shown in fig. 2. And [0029]. Kim discloses that the projection structures provide the benefit of allowing of providing a better coupling between the package and the engagement areas (Fig. 5, for precise placement) and allows the devices to be stacked as shown in fig. 6 making it more dense. As such it would have been obvious to include the engagement features external to the semiconductor package in the device of Mizuta to obtain the benefits.
As such, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicants claims.
Regarding claim 2.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the projections are substantially parallel to one another along the engagement surface.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 3.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 2.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 2, wherein a first projection of the pattern of projections has a substantially planar crest and a pair of flanks.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 4.
Mizuta discloses Fig. 5
The semiconductor package of claim 2, wherein the mold compound(3) has an outer perimeter(3 fig. 5, extreme left and right of 3), and the projections(projections of 21) are substantially perpendicular to a pair of opposing sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface(projections of 21 are perpendicular to extreme edges of 3).
Regarding claim 5.
Mizuta discloses Fig. 5
The semiconductor package of claim 2, wherein the mold compound(3) has an outer perimeter(3 left and right edges of 3),
Mizuta does not disclose:
and the projections are nonparallel to sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface and are non-perpendicular to the sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface.
However, the recited features are mere changes in shape which have been held to be obvious. Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 6.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Mizuta does not disclose:
Mizuta does not disclose: The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the projections are arranged in multiple columns and rows along the engagement surface.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Thus, the features of claim 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 7.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 6.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 6, wherein the projections are shaped as truncated pyramids.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Thus, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 8.
Mizuta discloses Fig. Fig. 47:
A semiconductor package, comprising:
a die pad(Fig. 47, pad where 11 is mounted to wiring board 71) having a first side(top) and a second side(bottom) opposite the first side; and
a semiconductor die(11) mounted to the first side(top of 71) of the die pad(71), the semiconductor die(11) configured to detect a force([0104]), and
Mizuta does not disclose:
the second side of the die pad including a pattern of projections that are adapted to engage a pattern of recesses in a mounting surface of a member of interest. external to the semiconductor package.
In related art, Pogge discloses Fig. 2A:
the second side of the die pad including a pattern of projections (203a211a 211b 210) that are adapted to engage a pattern(BB detail shown in fig. 2c) of recesses in a mounting surface of a member of interest. (211a 211b engaging with 205a 205b on 202).
Pogge discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of better mounting and better heat dispensation from the die, and easier self-alignment of the chip when it is installed on the 202 (abstract, col. 4, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to provide the surface topography taught by Pogge on the device of Mizuta for the obvious benefits of easing the alignment of the device.
In related art, Kim discloses:
and an engagement surface including a pattern of projections…external to the semiconductor package. Kim Figs. 5-6. Projections 43 outside of package shown in fig. 2. And [0029]. Kim discloses that the projection structures provide the benefit of allowing of providing a better coupling between the package and the engagement areas (Fig. 5, for precise placement) and allows the devices to be stacked as shown in fig. 6 making it more dense. As such it would have been obvious to include the engagement features external to the semiconductor package in the device of Mizuta to obtain the benefits.
As such, the features of claim 8 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicants claims.
Regarding claim 9.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 8.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the projections include first and second projections having a rectangular cross-section.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
.
Regarding claim 10.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 8.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the projections are substantially parallel to one another along the second side of the die pad.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes and numbers of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 11.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 8.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 8, wherein the projections are arranged in multiple rows and columns along the second side of the die pad.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Thus, the features of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 12.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 11.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 11, wherein the projections include first and second projections shaped as truncated pyramids.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Thus, the features of claim 13 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 13.
Mizuta discloses
The semiconductor package of claim 8, further comprising a mold compound(3) that covers the die pad(11 and mounting areas) and the semiconductor die(11), the mold compound(3) having an outer perimeter(3 left and right), and the projections including first and second projections that are substantially perpendicular to opposing sides of the outer perimeter(projections shown in 21 as steps being perpendicular to the sides of 3).
Regarding claim 14.
Mizuta discloses Fig. 5
The semiconductor package of claim 8, further comprising a mold(3) compound that covers the die pad(mounting area of 11) and the semiconductor die(11), the mold compound having an outer perimeter(3 left and right sides),
Mizuta does not disclose:
and the projections include first and second projections that are nonparallel to sides of the outer perimeter and are non-perpendicular to the sides of the outer perimeter.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Thus, the features of claim 13 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application.
Regarding claim 15.
Mizuta discloses:
A semiconductor package, comprising:
a die pad(112);
a semiconductor die(11) mounted to the die pad(112); and
a mold compound(3) having a first side(top) and a second side(bottom 3) opposite the first side, the compound covering the die pad(112 covered by 3) and the semiconductor die(3 covers 11),
Mizuta does not disclose:
and the second side including a pattern of projections that are adapted to engage with a mounting surface on a member of interest external to the semiconductor package.
.
In related art, Pogge discloses Fig. 2A:
and the second side (203a) including a pattern of projections(211a 211b 210)that are adapted to engage with a mounting surface on a member of interest (211a 211b engaging with 205a 205b on 202).
Pogge discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of better mounting and better heat dispensation from the die, and easier self-alignment of the chip when it is installed on the 202 (abstract, col. 4, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to provide the surface topography taught by Pogge on the device of Mizuta for the obvious benefits of easing the alignment of the device.
In related art, Kim discloses:
and an engagement surface including a pattern of projections…external to the semiconductor package. Kim Figs. 5-6. Projections 43 outside of package shown in fig. 2. And [0029]. Kim discloses that the projection structures provide the benefit of allowing of providing a better coupling between the package and the engagement areas (Fig. 5, for precise placement) and allows the devices to be stacked as shown in fig. 6 making it more dense. As such it would have been obvious to include the engagement features external to the semiconductor package in the device of Mizuta to obtain the benefits.
As such, the features of claim 15 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicants claims.
Regarding claim 16.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 15.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 15, wherein the projections are substantially parallel to one another along the engagement surface.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 17.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 15.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 16, wherein a first projection of the pattern of projections has a substantially planar crest and a pair of flanks.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26, and fig. 2b. 2b showing projections 205a having flanks 211a 211b and planar crest 212). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. ( (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 18.
Mizuta discloses
The semiconductor package of claim 16, wherein the mold compound(3) has an outer perimeter (left and right of 3) ,and the projections include first(21 left and right) and second projections that are substantially perpendicular to a pair of opposing sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface(along surface of 11 mounting). (projections of 21 are perpendicular to extreme edges of 3).
Regarding claim 19.
Mizuta discloses:
The semiconductor package of claim 16, wherein the mold compound(3) has an outer perimeter(3 left and right),
Mizuta does not discloses;
and the projections include first and second projections that are nonparallel to sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface and are non-perpendicular angle to the sides of the outer perimeter along the engagement surface.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
Regarding claim 20.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 15.
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 15, wherein the projections are spaced from one another along a radius of an axis extending perpendicularly through the first side and the second side of the mold compound.
However, Pogge discloses that the sizes and shapes of the projections may be changed as required by design specification. (See col. 6, lines 38-58 and col. 12, lines 17-26). IT would have been obvious to provide the recited shapes to the device of Mizuta as taught by Pogge for the obvious benefit of securing a desired chip to a substrate securely. Further, mere changes in shape of prior art products absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to modify Mizuta to include the recited features for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application with a lower profile and better heat dispensation.
pa
Regarding claim 21.
Mizuta discloses:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, further comprising a die pad(12) on which the semiconductor die is mounted(113 mounted on 12),
Mizuta does not disclose:
wherein the engagement surface is part of the die pad.
However, the features recited are a mere duplication of the working parts which has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here, the addition of the projections on to the die would provide the benefit of allowing the die to be installed in a desired space easily. As such, there is no new and unexpected results, and the features would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 22.
Mizuta discloses:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor die(11).
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the engagement surface is part of the semiconductor die.
Mizuta does not disclose:
wherein the engagement surface is part of the die pad.
However, the features recited are a mere duplication of the working parts which has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here, the addition of the projections on to the die would provide the benefit of allowing the die to be installed in a desired space easily. As such, there is no new and unexpected results, and the features would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 23.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 1
Mizuta does not disclose:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, wherein the engagement surface is part of the mold compound.
However, the recited features are a mere reversal or rearrangement of parts which as been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(C), and incorporates the features taught by Pogge because Pogge teaches placing the projections on the outer surface of the package which would be the molding of Mizuta. Thus, modified Mizuta would include the recited feature.
Here, the implementation of the projections into the molding compound is a mere reverse or rearrangement of parts. Here the changes would provide no new and unexpected result, and as such, would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 24.
Mizuta discloses:
The semiconductor package of claim 1, further comprising conductive leads(top of 11, connected to 113, and connected to 4) coupled to the semiconductor die and spaced from the engagement surface(4 connected to lead on 113 spaced from bottom of 11).
Regarding claim 25
Mizuta discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
a packaged semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor die(113); and
a mold compound(3),
Mizuta does not disclose:
in which a side of the packaged semiconductor device includes a plurality of structures protruding away from the semiconductor die.
Pogge discloses:
in which a side(bottom) of the packaged semiconductor device includes a plurality of structures(fig. 2b, 211a 211b 212) protruding away from the semiconductor die(distal end of 201a including portions at edges protruding down away from die in the package).
Pogge discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of better mounting and better heat dispensation from the die, and easier self-alignment of the chip when it is installed on the 202 (abstract, col. 4, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to provide the surface topography taught by Pogge on the device of Mizuta for the obvious benefits of easing the alignment of the device. As such, the features of claim 25 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicants claims.
Regarding claim 26.
Mizuta discloses:
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the semiconductor die includes a force sensor([0104]);
Mizuta does not disclose:
configurable to detect a force through the plurality of structures.
However, Mizuta discloses that the device may be a force sensor,
However, the recited features are a mere reversal or rearrangement of parts which as been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(C).
Here, the implementation of sensing the force in anyway using the projections is a mere reverse or rearrangement of parts. Here the changes would provide no new and unexpected result, and as such, would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 27.
Mizuta discloses all of the features of claim 25:
Mizuta does not disclose
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of structures are in at least one of: the mold compound, the semiconductor die, or a die pad on which the semiconductor die is mounted.
In related art, Pogge discloses Fig. 2A:
The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of structures(203a/b) are in at least one of: the mold compound(201a, abstract, 201a inclduign porjections on the bottom thereof), the semiconductor die, or a die pad on which the semiconductor die is mounted. Pogge discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of better mounting and better heat dispensation from the die, and easier self-alignment of the chip when it is installed on the 202 (abstract, col. 4, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to provide the surface topography taught by Pogge on the device of Mizuta for the obvious benefits of easing the alignment of the device. As such, the features of claim 27 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicants claims.
Regarding claim 28.
Mizuta discloses: The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the packaged semiconductor device includes conductive terminals(top of 11) coupled to the semiconductor die(113) and spaced from the plurality of structures(top of 111 spaced from structures which would be at bottom of device when modified in view of Sakamoto).
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 ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights