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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the view numbering format is improper because non-partial independent views are inexplicably designated alphanumerically instead of being consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, leading to a confusing numbering scheme. Only partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. The different views must otherwise be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(u). See Figure(s) 1, 1a, 1b, 9, 9a, 9b, 11, 11a, 12, 12a, 13, 13a, 14, and 14a.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “QFN Package with Plated Leads Having Improved Board Level Reliability”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 30 and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rivera-Marty (U.S. 2019/0148270).
Regarding Claim 30, Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a semiconductor die (die 16);
a package structure enclosing the semiconductor die (package structure 36); and
a conductive lead having a first surface and a second surface, the conductive lead having a bilayer on the first surface, the bilayer exposed outside the package structure along a bottom surface of the package structure, wherein the first surface of the conductive lead and the bottom surface of the package structure are coplanar (conductive lead 12, bilayer 26 [0041]) and sidewalls of the conductive lead are not covered by the bilayer (sidewalls 1200, [0023]).
Regarding Claim 33, Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, further discloses the electronic device of claim 30, wherein the bilayer includes a first layer and a second layer and wherein first layer is on the first surface (bilayer 25, lead 12, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 34, Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, further discloses the electronic device of claim 33, wherein the second layer is on the first layer ([0041]).
Regarding Claim 36, Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, further discloses the electronic device of claim 33, wherein the second layer includes tin ([0041]).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 21-22, 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera-Marty (U.S. 2019/0148270) in view of Heber et al. (U.S. 2002/0187364).
Regarding Claim 1, Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a semiconductor die (die 16);
a package structure enclosing the semiconductor die (package structure 36); and
a conductive lead having a first surface and a second surface (lead 12),
the conductive lead having a bilayer on the first surface, the bilayer exposed outside the package structure along a bottom surface of the package structure, the bilayer including a first layer and a second layer, the first layer on the first surface, the second layer on the first layer (first layer as a barrier layer under second layer 26, [0041])
the first layer including a barrier layer, and the second layer including tin ([0041]), wherein
the first surface of the conductive lead and the bottom surface of the package structure are coplanar and sidewalls of the conductive lead are not covered by the bilayer (lead 12, package structure 36, sidewalls 1200, [0023]).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the first layer includes cobalt. In the same field of endeavor, Heber et al. discloses a bilayer on a lead frame comprising a first layer comprising a barrier layer, said barrier layer further comprising cobalt, and second layer comprising tin [0037]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the barrier layer of the Heber reference as the barrier layer in the package of the Rivera-Marty reference and therefore form the first layer to include cobalt in order to reduce whisker formation and crack formation, as well as to use a suitable barrier material (Heber et al., [0016] and [0037]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness of approximately 0.5 µm or more and approximately 2.0 µm or less (Heber et al., [0037]).
Regarding Claim 21, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a second conductive lead having a first surface and a second surface (Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, second conductive lead 12).
Regarding Claim 22, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the second conductive lead has a second bilayer on the first surface, the second bilayer exposed outside the package structure along the bottom surface of the package structure (Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, second bilayer 26, package structure 36, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 24, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the second bilayer includes a first layer and a second layer (Rivera-Marty, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 25, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the first layer is on the first surface of the second conductive lead (Rivera-Marty, Figure 1, second lead 12, bilayer 26, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 26, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 25, wherein the second layer is on the first layer (Rivera-Marty, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 27, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the first layer includes cobalt (Heber et al., [0037]).
Regarding Claim 28, Rivera-Marty in view of Heber et al. further discloses the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the second layer includes tin (Rivera-Marty, [0041]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera-Marty (U.S. 2019/0148270), as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Heber et al. (U.S. 2002/0187364).
Regarding Claim 35, Rivera-Marty does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer includes cobalt. In the same field of endeavor, Heber et al. discloses a bilayer on a lead frame comprising a first layer comprising a barrier layer, said barrier layer further comprising cobalt, and second layer comprising tin [0037]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the barrier layer of the Heber reference as the barrier layer in the package of the Rivera-Marty reference and therefore form the first layer to include cobalt in order to reduce whisker formation and crack formation, as well as to use a suitable barrier material (Heber et al., [0016] and [0037]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that “Figure 1 is a perspective view” and “Fig. 1A and 1B are bottom vi3ew and partial sectional side view of the electronic device of Fig. 1”, it should be repeated that “the different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter”. Therefore, the different views must have consecutive Arabic numerals. The view numbering format for all these figures is not proper and the arguments are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments to replace the title, it should be noted that the Applicant must submit an annotated specification to amend the title. Furthermore, the title of “Electronic device with coated leads having improved board level reliability” is not descriptive. The following title is suggested: “QFN Package with Plated Leads Having Improved Board Reliability”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., any sidewalls to being the first surface being not coplanar with the first surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The sidewalls 1200 of the lead 12 are not covered by the bilayer 26, despite different sidewall 126 being covered by the bilayer 26). Furthermore, it should be noted that disclosure of an absolute lack of bilayer coverage of full side surfaces of the lead is not supported in the specification or the Figures. Only lack of cover in cross section is supported, and also not currently claimed. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith, can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights