DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on April 16, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to claims 35 and 37-39, the limitation “unsupported by a support block or structure while in the clamping position” is not sufficiently described in the Specification, especially regarding what “a support block or structure” is directed to such that the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the negative limitation “unsupported” is not described in the Specification and FIG. 1 clearly shows a support from 130, 132, and/or 102, 104. Although FIG. 1 does not appear to show any physical and direct contact of an element to the top and bottom external surfaces, the support is still present by 130, 132, and/04 102, 104 as the top and bottom external surfaces are supported to be “floating” in the environment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 34, the limitation “the first plurality of conductive terminals” and “the semiconductor die” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. As to claims 37-39, the preceding claim 36 is missing from the claims. It is not clear how the proper claim dependency is established when claim 36 is missing. Thus, the limitation renders the claims indefinite and clarification is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-24 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,585,281 to Truhitte et al. (“Truhitte”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0188015 A1 to Sangaunwong et al. (“Sangaunwong”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0233606 A1 to Inoue et al. (“Inoue”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0240416 A1 to Lee (“Lee”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0081055 A1 to Ikeda (“Ikeda”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0100091 A1 to Waltrich (“Waltrich”). As to claim 16, Truhitte discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising: covering a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals (17) coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound (15); positioning the mold compound (15) between a first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a second pair of electrodes (25, 35); moving a movable electrode (35) of the first pair (25, 35) and a movable electrode (35) of the second pair (25, 35) into a clamping position, wherein in the clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the plurality of conductive terminals (17); applying, by the first pair of electrodes (25, 35), a first voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15); and applying, by the second pair of electrodes (25, 35), a second voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Sangaunwong discloses the well-known assembly of covering a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound that is performed before the test to simplify the process of assembly (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). Inoue discloses applying, by the first electrode (301, 302), a first voltage (8 kV) to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (25); and applying, by the second electrode (31), a second voltage (ground) to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (25) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058) such that an electrostatic discharge test is conducted to ensure the breakdown is alleviated. As to claim 17, Truhitte in view of Lee further discloses wherein positioning further comprises positioning using a pick-up head (20/31) of a turret-type device handler (30) (See Lee Fig. 2, ¶ 0019), where such a turret-type device handler places the semiconductor die to a desired position on the first and second pair of electrodes. As to claim 18, Truhitte further discloses wherein moving further comprises moving the movable electrode (35) of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) vertically (See Column 4). As to claim 19, Truhitte in view of Sangaunwong and Inoue: after applying the first and second voltages, moving the movable electrode (35) of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) into an open position, wherein in the open position at least one of each of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) is not in contact with the plurality of conductive terminals (17); and removing the mold compound (15) from the electrodes (25, 35) (See Sangaunwong ¶ 0040) such that another semiconductor die can be tested subsequently. As to claim 20, Truhitte in view of Sangaunwong, Inoue, and Ikeda discloses further comprising: covering a second semiconductor die and a second plurality of conductive terminals (17/7, 8) coupled to the second semiconductor die in a second mold compound (15); positioning the second mold compound (15) between the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35); moving the movable electrode (35) of the first pair (25, 35) and the movable electrode (35) of the second pair (25, 35) into a second clamping position, wherein in the second clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the second plurality of conductive terminals (17/7, 8); applying, by the first pair of electrodes (25, 35), a first voltage (8 kV) to the second semiconductor die within the second mold compound (15); and applying, by the second pair of electrodes (25, 35), a second voltage (ground) to the second semiconductor die within the second mold compound (15); wherein the second voltage (ground) is less than the first voltage (8 kV); and wherein a height of the conductive terminals (17/7, 8) of the second mold compound (15) is different than a height of the conductive terminals (17/7, 8) of the first mold compound (15) (See Ikeda Fig. 5, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0029, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0039), such that a different semiconductor die having different conductive terminal thicknesses is securely tested by the same equipment without deformation. As to claim 21, Truhitte in view of Sangaunwong and Ikeda further discloses wherein a distance between each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) in the first clamping position is different than a distance between each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) in the second clamping position (See Truhitte, Sangaunwong, and Ikeda). As to claim 22, Truhitte in view of Inoue further discloses wherein: the first voltage (8 kV) is approximately equal to 1 to 20 kV; and the second voltage (ground) is approximately equal to a voltage at a ground node (See Inoue ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058). As to claim 23, Truhitte discloses a system, comprising: a first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a second pair of electrodes (25, 35) configured to receive a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals (17) coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound (15), each of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) comprising a movable electrode (35); wherein the movable electrode (35) of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to move between an open position and a clamping position, wherein in the clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the plurality of conductive terminals (17); wherein the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to apply a first voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15); and wherein the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to apply a second voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Sangaunwong discloses the well-known assembly of a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound that is performed before the test to simplify the process of assembly (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). Inoue discloses applying, by the first electrode (301, 302), a first voltage (8 kV) to the first semiconductor die within the mold compound (25); and applying, by the second electrode (31), a second voltage (ground) to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (25) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058) such that an electrostatic discharge test is conducted to ensure the breakdown is alleviated. As to claim 24, Truhitte in view of Waltrich further discloses wherein: the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) comprises an inner face facing the second pair of electrodes (25, 35); the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) comprises an inner face facing the first pair of electrodes (25, 35); and a profile of each inner face comprises a Borda profile (See Waltrich Fig. 2, ¶ 0016, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0040), such that an excessive field increase is reduced at the edges. As to claim 27, Truhitte further discloses wherein the movable electrode (35) of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to move vertically between the open position and the clamping position (See Column 4). As to claim 28, Truhitte in view of Sangaunwong and Ikeda further discloses wherein: the movable electrode (35) of each of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to move between an open position and at least a first and second clamping position; and a distance between each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) in the first clamping position is different than a distance between each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) in the second clamping position (See Ikeda Fig. 5, ¶ 0006, ¶ 0029, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0039), such that a different semiconductor die having different conductive terminal thicknesses is securely tested by the same equipment without deformation. As to claim 29, Truhitte in view of Sangaunwong and Lee further comprising a turret-type device handler (30) comprising a pick-up head (20/31) configured to: position the mold compound (15/10) between the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35); and remove the mold compound (15/10) from between the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) (See Sangaunwong Fig. 7, ¶ 0040 and Lee Fig. 2, ¶ 0019), where such a turret-type device handler places the semiconductor die to a desired position on the first and second pair of electrodes and before performing the test and removes the semiconductor die after the test. As to claim 30, Truhitte in view of Inoue further discloses wherein: the first voltage (8 kV) is approximately equal to 1 to 20 kV; and the second voltage (ground) is approximately equal to a voltage at a ground node (See Inoue ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058). As to claim 31, Truhitte discloses a system, comprising: movable electrodes (35) of first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) configured to move between an open position and a clamping position, wherein in the clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of conductive terminals (17) of a semiconductor device; wherein the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to apply a first voltage to the semiconductor device; and wherein the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to apply a second voltage to the semiconductor device (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Inoue discloses wherein the first electrode (301, 302) is configured to apply a first voltage (8 kV) to the semiconductor device; and wherein the second electrode (31) is configured to apply a second voltage (ground) to the semiconductor device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058) such that an electrostatic discharge test is conducted to ensure the breakdown is alleviated. As to claim 32, Truhitte discloses a system, comprising: a first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a second pair of electrodes (25, 35) configured to receive a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals (17) coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound (15), each of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) comprising a movable electrode (35); and wherein the movable electrode (35) of the first and second pairs of electrodes (25, 35) is configured to move between an open position and a clamping position, wherein in the clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the plurality of conductive terminals (17) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Sangaunwong discloses the well-known assembly of a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound that is performed before the test to simplify the process of assembly (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). Inoue discloses wherein the first electrode (301, 302) is configured to apply a first voltage (8 kV) to the semiconductor die; and wherein the second electrode (31) is configured to apply a second voltage (ground) to the semiconductor die (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058) such that an electrostatic discharge test is conducted to ensure the breakdown is alleviated. As to claim 33, Truhitte further discloses a method, comprising: covering a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals (17) coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound (15); positioning the mold compound (15) between a first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a second pair of electrodes (25, 35); and moving a movable electrode (35) of the first pair (25, 35) and a movable electrode (35) of the second pair (25, 35) into a clamping position, wherein in the clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the plurality of conductive terminals (17) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Sangaunwong discloses the well-known assembly of covering a semiconductor die and a plurality of conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound that is performed before the test to simplify the process of assembly (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). As to claim 34, Truhitte discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package, the method comprising: positioning a mold compound (15) between a first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a second pair of electrodes (25, 35); moving a movable electrode (35) of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and a movable electrode (35) of the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) into a first clamping position, wherein in the first clamping position each of the first pair of electrodes (25, 35) and the second pair of electrodes (25, 35) electrically couples to a unique subset of the first plurality of conductive terminals (17) extending away from the mold compound (15); applying, by the first pair of electrodes (25, 35), a first voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15); and applying, by the second pair of electrodes (25, 35), a second voltage to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (15) (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Column 3, Column 4). Sangaunwong discloses the well-known assembly of covering a semiconductor die and a first plurality of conductive terminals coupled to the semiconductor die in a mold compound that is performed before the test to simplify the process of assembly (See Fig. 7, ¶ 0040). Inoue discloses applying, by the first electrode (301, 302), a first voltage (8 kV) to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (25); and applying, by the second electrode (31), a second voltage (ground) to the semiconductor die within the mold compound (25) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051-¶ 0058) such that an electrostatic discharge test is conducted to ensure the breakdown is alleviated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue “there are 10 discrete pairs of upper contact member 35/lower contact block 25…as required by Claim 16/23/31/32/33/34.” This is not found persuasive because the clamping position is shown to simultaneously and physically couple all the conductive terminals by the upper and lower electrodes as seen in FIG. 1 of the Drawings. The limitation “electrically couples to a unique subset of the plurality of conductive terminals” appears to recite coupling and/or testing a subset of the plurality of conductive terminals. Such is clearly taught by Inoue et al., where some specific and respective terminals are tested. As also disclosed in cited references Suh et al. (US 2018/0109249 A1) FIG. 1, Suh (US 2007/0052379 A1) FIG. 1, and Hirakawa et al. (US 5,698,899) FIG. 2, the extended/protruded conductive terminals are different terminals such that the electrical coupling is with respect to some unique and respective conductive terminals to test as taught by Inoue et al.
Applicants further argue “as required by Claim 18/27. Examiner’s determination is supposition not supported by fact which is little more than improper hindsight reconsideration which must be withdrawn.” This is not found persuasive because the downward movement of the movable electrode clearly meets the recited “vertically”. The movement from a higher position to a lower position of the movable electrode meets the limitation. The limitation “vertically” does not exclude any lateral movement or is merely and only “vertically”.
Applicants further argue “Claim 12…Claim 13…Claim 14…Claim 15…Claim 16…Claim 17…Claim 18… Claim 19…Claim 22…Claim 23…Claim 24…Claim 39…Claim 40…recited in claim 11”. However, claims 1-15 are canceled and claim 39 is actually a newly added claim and claim 40 is not even present. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue “Independent Claim 27 requires…and the die pad’”. This is not found persuasive because claim 27 recites “wherein the movable electrode of the first…position” and depends on claim 23. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue claims 28-35 and 41-43 depend on claim 27. However, claims 28-30 actually depend on claim 23, claims 31-34 are independent claims, claim 35 is actually a newly added claim, and claims 41-43 are not even present in the claims. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue claims 44-51 that are not even present in the claims. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue “Claims 20, 21, 36 & 37…over Minamio et al…Hishiki et al…Lee et al…” It is noted these references are not even cited. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants further argue “Claims 25, 26, & 38…in view of Williamson et al…” It is noted these references are not even cited. Thus, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Response to Amendment
The limitation “remain unsupported by a support block or structure” appears to direct to the non-direct/physical contact of the mold compound such that the top and bottom external surfaces of the mold compound do not physically/directly contact any element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights