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 August 14, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 36, 39-43, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0006055 A1 to Chien-Hung et al. (“Chien-Hung”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0205790 A1 to Haga (“Haga”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0155260 A1 to Kwan et al. (“Kwan”). As to claim 1, although Chien-Hung discloses an electronic device comprising: a lead frame (170) including a die paddle (130, 230) and a plurality of leads (140, 240) surrounding the die paddle (130, 230), wherein a first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230) includes a flat central area (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025), Chien-Hung does not further disclose and a dimpled area surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple is different from a diameter of the second dimple. However, Haga does disclose and a dimpled area (33) surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area (33) includes a first dimple (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31), and a second dimple (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31), and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple (34, 53) is different from a diameter of the second dimple (34, 53) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, ¶ 0074-¶ 0078, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0130-¶ 0134, ¶ 0142-¶ 0144, ¶ 0149). Kwan also discloses wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple (46) recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple (46) recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple (46) is different from a diameter of the second dimple (46) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033). In view of the teachings of Haga and Kwan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chien-Hung to have a dimpled area surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple is different from a diameter of the second dimple because the dimpled area having the first and second dimples of different dimensions provide both shear locking and tensile locking to prevent shifting (See Haga ¶ 0133, ¶ 0143 and Kwan ¶ 0033). As to claim 11, although Chien-Hung discloses an electronic device, comprising: a lead frame (170) including a die paddle (130, 230) and a plurality of leads (140, 240) surrounding the die paddle (130, 230), wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes a first surface (131, 231) and a second surface (132, 232) opposite the first surface (131, 231), and wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes second dimples (133, 233) recessed with respect to the second surface (132, 232); an encapsulant (120, 220) in contact with the first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230); and a solder material (261, 262) in contact with the second surface (132, 232) of the die paddle (130, 230), wherein the second surface (132, 232) of the die paddle (130, 230) is free from being encapsulated by the encapsulant (120, 220); and each of the second dimples (133, 233) has an arch shape with a wider opening at the second surface (132, 232) and tapering inward (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025), Chien-Hung does not further disclose wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface and wherein each of the first dimples has an arch shape with a wider opening at the first surface and tapering inward. However, Haga does disclose wherein the die paddle (3) includes first dimples (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31) and wherein each of the first dimples (34, 53) has an arch shape with a wider opening at the first surface and tapering inward (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, ¶ 0074-¶ 0078, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0130-¶ 0134, ¶ 0142-¶ 0144, ¶ 0149). Kwan also discloses first dimples (46) recessed with respect to the first surface and wherein each of the first dimples (46) has an arch shape with a wider opening at the first surface and tapering inward (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033). In view of the teachings of Haga and Kwan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chien-Hung to have wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface and wherein each of the first dimples has an arch shape with a wider opening at the first surface and tapering inward because the first dimples having an arch shape with a wider opening at the first surface and tapering inward provide both shear locking and tensile locking to prevent shifting (See Haga ¶ 0133, ¶ 0143 and Kwan ¶ 0033). As to claim 36, although Chien-Hung discloses an electronic device, comprising a lead frame (170) including a die paddle (130, 230) and a plurality of leads (140, 240) surrounding the die paddle (130, 230), wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes a first surface (131, 231) and a second surface (132, 232) opposite the first surface (131, 231), and wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes second dimples (133, 233) recessed with respect to the second surface (132, 232); an electronic component (110, 210) in contact with the first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230); an encapsulant (120, 220) covering the electronic component (110, 210); a solder material (261, 262) in contact with the second surface (132, 232) of the die paddle (130, 230); and wherein the solder material (261, 262) horizontally overlaps the encapsulant (120, 220), and wherein a lateral surface of the die paddle (130, 230) includes a protrusion (under 250, adjacent 231), and the protrusion (under 250, adjacent 231) has at least three substantially flat surfaces contacting the encapsulant (120, 220) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025), Chien-Hung does not further disclose wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface. However, Haga does disclose wherein the die paddle (3) includes first dimples (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, ¶ 0074-¶ 0078, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0130-¶ 0134, ¶ 0142-¶ 0144, ¶ 0149). Kwan also discloses first dimples (46) recessed with respect to the first surface (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033). In view of the teachings of Haga and Kwan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Chien-Hung to have wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface because the first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface provide both shear locking and tensile locking to prevent shifting (See Haga ¶ 0133, ¶ 0143 and Kwan ¶ 0033). As to claim 39, Chien-Hung in view of Haga and Kwan discloses further comprising: an electronic component (110, 210) contacting the flat central area of the first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230), wherein at least three dimples (34, 53/46) of different sizes overlap in a view from two different directions (See Haga Fig. 8, Fig. 11 and Kwan Fig. 5) such that more dimples of different dimensions provide a stronger locking. As to claim 40, Chien-Hung in view of Haga further discloses wherein the first surface (131, 231/31) of the die paddle (130, 230/3) includes a flat outermost area surrounding the dimpled area (33) (See Chien-Hung Fig. 2 and Haga Fig. 1). As to claim 41, Chien-Hung further discloses wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes a second surface (132, 232) opposite the first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230) and including a third dimple (133, 233) recessed with respect to the second surface (132, 232), wherein the third dimple (133, 233) is overlapped with the flat central area and has an arch shape with a wider opening at the second surface (132, 232) and tapering inward (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4). As to claim 42, Chien-Hung discloses further comprising: a solder material (261, 262) disposed over the second surface (132, 232) and extending into an elevation between the first surface (131, 231) and the second surface (132, 232) of the die paddle (130, 230) (See Fig. 4). As to claim 43, Chien-Hung further discloses wherein, from a sectional view perspective, the solder material (261, 262) protrudes beyond opposite lateral surfaces of the die paddle (130, 230) (See Fig. 4). As to claim 47, Chien-Hung in view of Haga discloses further comprising: an electronic component (110, 210/2) contacting the first surface (131, 231/31) of the die paddle (130, 230/3), wherein the electronic component (110, 210/2) overlaps with the second dimples (133, 233) and does not overlap with the first dimples (34, 53) in a first direction substantially perpendicular to the first surface (131, 231/31) of the die paddle (130, 230/3) (See Haga Fig. 2). As to claim 48, Chien-Hung further discloses wherein the solder material (261, 262) overlaps with the encapsulant (120, 220) in a second direction substantially parallel to the first surface (131, 231) of the die paddle (130, 230) (See Fig. 4). As to claim 49, Chien-Hung in view of Haga further discloses wherein, from a top view perspective, the first dimples (34, 53) have a cutting surface substantially aligned with a lateral surface of the encapsulant (120, 220/6) (See Haga Fig. 1, Fig. 2) (Notes: the limitation “aligned” is defined as to be in or come into precise adjustment or correct relative position by Merriam-Webster.com). As to claim 50, Chien-Hung in view of Haga further discloses wherein, from a cross-sectional view perspective, the lateral surface of the encapsulant (120, 220/6) is substantially aligned with a lateral surface of one of the plurality of leads (140, 240/4) (See Haga Fig. 1, Fig. 2). As to claim 51, Chien-Hung in view of Haga further discloses wherein the encapsulant (120, 220/6) extends into the first dimples (34, 53) and the solder material (261, 262) extends into the second dimples (133, 233) (See Chien-Hung Fig. 4 and Haga Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 36, 44-46, and 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0254214 A1 to Makino (“Makino”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0205790 A1 to Haga (“Haga”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0006055 A1 to Chien-Hung et al. (“Chien-Hung”)/U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0155260 A1 to Kwan et al. (“Kwan”). As to claim 1, although Makino discloses an electronic device comprising: a lead frame (LF) including a die paddle (DP) and a plurality of leads (LD) surrounding the die paddle (DP), wherein a first surface (top) of the die paddle (DP) includes a flat central area (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, Fig 10, Fig. 12, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0117, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0136, ¶ 0138, ¶ 0141, ¶ 0236), Makino does not further disclose and a dimpled area surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple is different from a diameter of the second dimple. However, Haga does disclose and a dimpled area (33) surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area (33) includes a first dimple (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31), and a second dimple (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31), and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple (34, 53) is different from a diameter of the second dimple (34, 53) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, ¶ 0074-¶ 0078, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0130-¶ 0134, ¶ 0142-¶ 0144, ¶ 0149). Kwan also discloses wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple (46) recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple (46) recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple (46) is different from a diameter of the second dimple (46) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0033). In view of the teachings of Haga and Kwan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Makino to have a dimpled area surrounding the flat central area; wherein the dimpled area includes a first dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and a second dimple recessed with respect to the first surface, and wherein, from a top view perspective, a diameter of the first dimple is different from a diameter of the second dimple because the dimpled area having the first and second dimples of different dimensions provide both shear locking and tensile locking to prevent shifting (See Haga ¶ 0133, ¶ 0143 and Kwan ¶ 0033). As to claim 36, although Makino discloses an electronic device, comprising a lead frame (LF) including a die paddle (DP) and a plurality of leads (LD) surrounding the die paddle (DP), wherein the die paddle (DP) includes a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) opposite the first surface (top); an electronic component (CHP) in contact with the first surface (top) of the die paddle (DP); an encapsulant (MR) covering the electronic component (CHP); a solder material (JM) in contact with the second surface (bottom) of the die paddle (DP); and wherein the solder material (JM) horizontally overlaps the encapsulant (MR), and wherein a lateral surface of the die paddle (DP) includes a protrusion (LFhf), and the protrusion (LFhf) has at least three substantially flat surfaces contacting the encapsulant (MR) (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, Fig 10, Fig. 12, Fig. 37, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0117, ¶ 0119, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0136, ¶ 0138, ¶ 0141, ¶ 0236), Makino does not further disclose and wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface and second dimples recessed with respect to the second surface. However, Haga does disclose and wherein the die paddle (3) includes first dimples (34, 53) recessed with respect to the first surface (31) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, ¶ 0074-¶ 0078, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0093, ¶ 0097, ¶ 0130-¶ 0134, ¶ 0142-¶ 0144, ¶ 0149) and Chien-Hung discloses wherein the die paddle (130, 230) includes second dimples (133, 233) recessed with respect to the second surface (132, 232) (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0025). In view of the teachings of Haga and Chien-Hung, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Makino to have wherein the die paddle includes first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface and second dimples recessed with respect to the second surface because the first dimples recessed with respect to the first surface provide locking to prevent shifting (See Haga ¶ 0133, ¶ 0143) and the second dimples provide better adhesion to the solder material (See Chien-Hung ¶ 0020). As to claim 44, Makino further discloses wherein the plurality of leads (LD) includes a fourth dimple (LDd) recessing inwardly and having an arch shape, and wherein the electronic device further comprising: a solder material (JM) disposed over the plurality of leads (LD) and extending into the fourth dimple (LDd), wherein the solder material (JM) protrudes beyond opposite lateral surfaces of one of the plurality of leads (LD) (See Fig. 10, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0117). As to claim 45, Makino discloses further comprising: an encapsulant (MR) encapsulating the die paddle (DP) and the plurality of leads (LD), wherein the solder material (JM) exhibits outward arcs on opposite lateral surfaces of the encapsulant (MR) (See Fig. 10, ¶ 0236). As to claim 46, Makino further discloses wherein the plurality of leads (LD) does not laterally protrude beyond the encapsulant (MR) (See Fig. 10). As to claim 51, Makino in view of Haga and Chien-Hung further discloses wherein the encapsulant (MR/6/120, 220) extends into the first dimples (34, 53) and the solder material (JM/261, 262) extends into the second dimples (133, 233) (See Makino Fig. 10, Haga Fig. 2, and Chien-Hung Fig. 4). As to claim 52, Makino in view of Haga and Chien-Hung discloses further comprising: an intermetallic compound structure (alloy) disposed between the solder material (JM/261, 262) and the second surface (bottom/132, 232) of the die paddle (DP/3/130, 230), wherein the intermetallic compound structure (alloy) extends among the second dimples (133, 233) (See Makino Fig. 10, ¶ 0210, Haga ¶ 0007, and Chien-Hung Fig. 4). As to claim 53, Makino in view of Haga and Chien-Hung further discloses wherein the intermetallic compound structure (alloy) is adjacent to the encapsulant (MR/6/120, 220), and the intermetallic compound structure (alloy) includes a plurality of arch shapes, each has a wider opening at the second surface (bottom/132, 232) and tapering inward (See Makino Fig. 10 and Chien-Hung Fig. 4). As to claim 54, Makino further discloses wherein, from a cross-sectional view perspective, the solder material (JM) is wider than the encapsulant (MR) (See Fig. 10). As to claim 55, Makino further discloses wherein the solder material (JM) exhibits outward arcs on opposite lateral surfaces of the encapsulant (MR) (See Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0254214 A1 to Makino (“Makino”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0205790 A1 to Haga (“Haga”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0006055 A1 to Chien-Hung et al. (“Chien-Hung”) as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068595 A1 to Seliger et al. (“Seliger”). The teachings of Makino, Haga, and Chien-Hung have been discussed above. As to claim 52, Makino, Haga, and Chien-Hung in view of Seliger discloses further comprising: an intermetallic compound structure disposed between the solder material (JM/261, 262) and the second surface (bottom/132, 232) of the die paddle (DP/3/130, 230), wherein the intermetallic compound structure extends among the second dimples (133, 233) (See Seliger Fig. 4, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0044) such that adhesion and high mechanical toughness are provided.
As to claim 53, Makino, Haga, and Chien-Hung in view of Seliger further discloses wherein the intermetallic compound structure is adjacent to the encapsulant (MR/6/120, 220), and the intermetallic compound structure includes a plurality of arch shapes, each has a wider opening at the second surface (bottom/132, 232) and tapering inward (See Makino Fig. 10 and Chien-Hung Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 36 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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