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 .
Note by the Examiner
For clarity, the reference to specific claim numbers are presented in bold. Cited claim limitations are presented in bold the first time they are associated with a particular prior art disclosing the cited limitations, and subsequent reference to the already disclosed claim limitations are presented un-bolded. Certain elements from prior art which are not required by the claims are also presented un-bolded if they are particularly pertinent to understanding how the references are being combined. Item-to-item matching and Examiner explanations for 102 &/or 103 rejections have been provided in parenthesis.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant of 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicants election with traverse of Species A, corresponding to Claims 1-6 is acknowledged.
Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2026. The amendment made to Claim 1 is accepted. Applicant has stated the application does not lack unity of invention after the amendment made to Claim 1 filed on 04/16/2026, and therefore the applicant request the filed Restriction Requirement of 03/03/2026 be withdrawn and Claims 7 and 8 be included in further examination. However, though the amended claim does not add new matter and has been accepted by the Examiner, this amendment does not link the withdrawn Claims 7 and 8 to single inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. Even if the amended claim refutes the disclosure of the Examiner supplied prior art (US 5202577 A, Ichigi), this amendment does not change the fact of different invention species being present in the instant application.
Claims 7 and 8 are drawn to the shape of the upper surface of the dam bar, where Claim 7 sites the element must be a circle and Claim 8 sites it must be a polygon. In the elected species, Claim 5 sites the upper surface of the dam bar is a rectangle. The shape of the upper surface of the dam bar is mutually exclusive, as the shape cannot be all three shapes in a single embodiment as described in the Restriction Requirement. See MPEP 806.04(f) and 1893.03(d).
Therefore, the restriction is maintained and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of lead” in line 2, where it should read “plurality of leads” as in a plurality of conductive wire, paths, channels, etc.
Claim 3 recites “the lead is a same as a thickness of the thickest portion of the dambar” in line 2, where it is unclear what “a same” is referring to. The Examiner is interpreting this to mean the lead is the same thickness as the thickest portion of the dambar.
Claim 6 recites “an extension direction of the lead” in line 2, where it is unclear whether the direction of extension is the same as the extension direction in Claim 1 who also recites “an extension direction” in line 8. The Examiner is interpreting this to be the same direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Kuo (US 9972561 B2), hereinafter as K1, and Tomita et al. (JP 2012109459 A, see attached translation), hereinafter as T1.
Regarding Claim 1, K1 discloses a lead frame (see FIG. 1, element 10, and col. 4 ln. 62 “lead frame 10”) comprising:
a plurality of leads (see FIG. 5, col. 7 ln. 8 “FIG. 5 shows a partial planar layout of a structure between two adjacent carriers in another lead frame” and element 54a and 54b, col. 7 ln. 10 “array of leads 54a and an array of leads 54b”) with a lead groove formed therein (see FIG. 5, element 57, col. 7 ln. 19 “groove 57”); and
a dambar arranged between the leads to connect the leads (see FIG. 5, element 56, col. 7 ln. 11 “connecting rib 56”), wherein
K1 does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the dambar arranged between the leads has at least two thickness values, and
a dambar groove is formed between a thickest portion of the dambar and the lead neighboring the thickest portion of the dambar wherein, when a width of the dambar is defined in an extension direction of the leads, the dambar groove extends across an entire width of the dambar.
T1 discloses a thickness of the dambar (see FIGs. 3 and 4, element 17 and pg. 2 par. 10 “connecting bars 17”) arranged between the leads (see FIG. 3 and 4, elements 16 and 18, and pg. 3 par. 1 “connecting bar 17 extends perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction of the lead portion 16 connected to the connecting bar 17” and pg. 3 par. 2 “connecting bar 17 has a plurality of lead connecting portions 18”) has at least two thickness values (see FIG. 3, element 19, and pg. 3 par. 2 “a plurality of reinforcing portions 19 positioned between the lead connecting portions 18”, where pg. 3 par. 5 “the lead connecting portion 18 of the connecting bar 17 has a thin cross section that is thinner than the lead portion 16” and pg. 3 par. 7 “the reinforcing portion 19 is not half-etched and has a vertical cross section having the same thickness as the lead portion 16” where the connection portion 18 of the connecting bar 17 and the reinforcing structure 19 of the connecting bar 17 have separate thickness as a part of element 17), and
a dambar groove (see FIGs. 3-5 where the portion between element 19 and the lead portion 16 has a groove due to element 17 being thinner than elements 16 and 19) is formed between a thickest portion of the dambar (element 19) and the lead neighboring (element 16) the thickest portion of the dambar wherein (see FIGs. 3-5 where the described groove is between the thicker elements 16 and 19, where the groove is defined by the thickness of element 17), when
a width of the dambar is defined in an extension direction of the leads (see FIG. 3 where the width of the connecting bar 17 extends in a direction of the leads 16), the dambar groove extends across an entire width of the dambar (see FIG. 3 where the described groove between 19 and 16 extends across the width of the connecting bar 17).
The inclusion of a dambar with two thickness that extend across the entire dambar as disclosed by T1 is incorporated into the disclosure of K1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teachings of T1 into K1 because there is motivation to reinforce the structure of the lead frame – having additional thicker element between the leads provides greater structural integrity for the frame. The use of further structurable support yields predictable results (see T1 pg. 3 par. 7).
Regarding Claim 2, K1 and T1 disclose the lead frame of claim 1, wherein where T1 further discloses the lead groove (element 57) is applied to a wettable flank structure (see col. 7 ln 47 “groove in an aspect ensures a sufficient volume to avoid filling with debris, in an aspect provides an inclined angle less steep than a right angle to facilitate wetting” where structure would be wettable since the process of wetting is used).
Regarding Claim 3, K1 and T1 disclose the lead frame of claim 1, where T1 further discloses wherein a thickness of a thickest portion of the leads (element 16) is a same as a thickness of the thickest portion of the dambar (see pg. 3 par. 7 “the reinforcing portion 19 is not half-etched and has a vertical cross section having the same thickness as the lead portion 16” where the reinforcing potion 19 is attached to the connecting bar 17).
Regarding Claim 4, K1 and T1 disclose the lead frame of claim 1, wherein where K1 further discloses a thickness of a portion of the lead where the lead groove is formed is a same as a thickness of a portion of the dambar where the dambar groove is formed (see FIG. 5, specifically the cross section 5a, where the groove 57 in the center is the same thickness as the groove 53 on the left and right of the structure).
Regarding Claim 5, K1 and T1 the lead frame of claim 1, where T1 further discloses wherein a shape of an upper surface of the thickest portion of the dambar (element 19) is a rectangle (see pg. 3 par. 7 in reference element 19 “a case where the width on the front surface side and the width on the back surface side including such a cross-sectional figure are equal is expressed as a rectangular shape” stating a case can be made for a rectangular shape of element 19 can be applied, and is done so in another embodiment seen in FIG. 13 where the reinforcing portion element 63 has a rectangular top surface).
Regarding Claim 6, K1 and T1 disclose the lead frame of claim 5, where T1 further discloses wherein a part of sides of the rectangle is parallel to an extension direction of the lead (As described the shape of the reinforcing portion 19 can be a rectangle and if so, the sides would extend in parallel to the extension direction. An embodiment of this nature can be seen in FIG. 13 where the side of the rectangle element 63 extend parallel to the direction of the lead 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENNEN STUART CUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-6563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Steven Loke can be reached at (571) 272-1657. 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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2818 /STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights