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 the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Shim reference previously of record.
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 Applicant requests a suggestion concerning the title. It is suggested that the title be amended as: “METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SUBSTRATES WITH FORCE COUNTERING CONFORMAL MATERIAL FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES, CORRESPONDING SUBSTRATE AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-19 have been amended to draw antecedent basis from acceptable sources. The rejection of the claims under § 112 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20070052070 A1 to Islam et al. (hereinafter “Islam”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20070111379 A1 Shim et al. (hereinafter “Shim”).
Regarding claim 1, Islam teaches a method of forming a device (abstract) in figs. 1-6H, comprising:
providing a sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) [0043] having spaces therein (spaces between 27 and 12 hereinafter “spaces”) [0047], the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) including at least one die pad (30) [0045] having a first die pad surface (27) [0044] configured to mount a semiconductor chip (20) [0047] as well as a second die pad surface (34) [0044] opposite the first die pad surface (27); and
molding pre-mold material (18) [0045] to penetrate into said spaces (spaces) of the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) and provide a laminar pre-molded substrate (10 as in fig. 2) and wherein said first die pad surface (27) is left exposed (27 left partially exposed to/at attached surface of 20 [0044]) by the pre-mold material (18; see figs. 6A-6E) with a peripheral edge (interpreted as “outer edge”)of the at least one die pad (30) bordering on the pre-mold material (18) molded onto the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10);
wherein providing the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) comprises providing at the peripheral (outer) edge of the at least one die pad (30) an alternation of:
first anchoring formations (18 as disposed in the box annotated below, hereinafter “first anchor”) [0048] of the at least one die pad (30) to the pre-mold material (18), the first anchoring formations (first anchor) configured to counter first detachment forces (upward force with respect to fig. 2) inducing displacement of the at least one die pad (30) with respect to the pre-mold material (18) in a first direction (up with respect to fig. 2) from the second die pad surface (34) to the first die pad surface (27) (forces countered through lips 56 [0048] thus anchoring); and
second anchoring formations (50 and 52; see figs. 2 & 3 hereinafter “second anchor”) [0047] of the at least one die pad (30) to the pre-mold material (18), the second anchoring formations (50 and 52) configured to counter second detachment forces (down with respect to fig. 2) [0047] inducing displacement of the at least one die pad (30) with respect to the pre-mold material (18) in a second direction (down) [0047] from the first die pad surface (27) to the second die pad surface (34) (forces countered through the trenches 50 and 52 [0047] thus anchoring).
To further clarify, the first and second anchoring formations further i.e., in addition to the above, resist the first and second detachment forces as claimed because of their inherent inertia. See [0047]-[0048].
Islam does not teach wherein surfaces of the pre-mold material are coplanar with the first and second die pad surface.
Shim, however, teaches a sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (leadframe 100; fig. 8) [0050] wherein surfaces of the pre-mold material (first molding material; fig. 8) [0050] are coplanar with the first (top) and second (bottom) die pad surface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure of Islam to have coplanar surfaces with the pre-mold material and the first and second die pad surfaces to allow for subsequent materials to be deposited with differing coefficients of thermal expansion, thus resulting in higher durability, as taught by Shim [0054]-[0055].
PNG
media_image1.png
521
1249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from Islam
Regarding claim 2, Islam teaches a method according to claim 1 in figs. 1-6H, wherein the first anchoring formations (first anchor) are located at the first die pad surface (27) and the second anchoring formations (second anchor) are located at the second die pad surface (34).
Regarding claim 3, Islam teaches a method according to claim 1 in figs. 1-6H, wherein each of the first (first anchor) and the second anchoring formations (second anchor) is provided as a cutaway portion (portion of the spaces, see claim 1) of the peripheral edge of the at least one die pad (30), wherein the pre-mold material (18) molded onto the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) penetrates into said cutaway portions (portion of spaces) at the peripheral edge of the at least one die pad (30).
Regarding claim 4, Islam teaches a method according to claim 1 in figs. 1-6H, wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor) comprises at least two first anchoring formations (first anchor) alternating with at least two second anchoring formations (second anchor).
Regarding claim 6, Islam teaches a method according to claim 1 in figs. 1-6H, further comprising providing in said alternation equal numbers of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (10) is equally resistant to said first detachment forces (up) and to said second detachment forces (down). To further clarify, with, relation to fig. 2 of Islam, a force exerted on the structure near element 28 (on either side) would equally affect the structure, the substrate thus being equally resistant to both detachment forces.
Regarding claim 7, Islam does not teach a method according to claim 1 in figs. 2-5, further comprising providing in said alternation first anchoring formations (first anchor) greater in number than said second anchoring formations (second anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (200) is more resistant to said first detachment forces (up) than to said second detachment forces (down).
Shim, however, teaches a pre-molded lead frame forming method (abstract) in fig. 11 comprising more first anchoring formations (110) than second anchoring formations (200).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Islam to comprise more first anchoring formations than second anchoring formations to strengthen the laminar structure as taught by Shim in [0061].
To further clarify, with relation to the effect of the forces, a force exerted on the structure of Islam as modified by Shim would resist the first forces more than the second because of the greater number of first anchoring formations.
Regarding claim 9, Islam teaches a substrate (abstract) in figs. 2-3, comprising:
a sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) [0043] having spaces therein (spaces between 27 and 12 hereinafter “spaces”) [0047], the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) including at least one die pad (30) [0045] having a first die pad surface (27) [0044] configured to mount a semiconductor chip (20) [0047] mounted thereon as well as a second die pad surface (34) [0044] opposite the first die pad surface (27); and
pre-mold material (18) [0045] molded onto the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10), wherein the pre-mold material (18) penetrates into said spaces (spaces) and provides a laminar pre-molded substrate (10 as in fig. 2) and wherein said first die pad surface (27) is left exposed by the pre-mold material (27 left partially exposed to/at attached surface of 20 [0044]) with a periphery (interpreted as “outer edge,” see above with respect to 112 (b) rejections) of the at least one die pad (30) bordering on the pre-mold material (18) molded onto the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10);
wherein along a peripheral edge (interpreted as “outer edge”) of the at least one die pad (30) there is provided an alternation of:
first anchoring formations (as annotated above, hereinafter “first anchor”) [0048] of the at least one die pad (30) to the pre-mold material (18), the first anchoring formations (first anchor) configured to counter first detachment forces (upward force with respect to fig. 2) inducing displacement of the at least one die pad (30) with respect to the pre-mold material (18) in a first direction (up) from the second die pad surface (34) to the first die pad surface (27) (forces countered through lips 56 [0048] thus anchoring); and
second anchoring formations (50 and 52; see fig. 3) [0047] of the at least one die pad (30) to the pre-mold material (18), the second anchoring formations (second anchor) configured to counter second detachment forces (down with respect to fig. 2) [0047] inducing displacement of the at least one die pad (30) with respect to the pre-mold material (18) in a second direction (down) from the first die pad surface (27) to the second die pad surface (34) (forces countered through the trenches 50 and 52 [0047] thus anchoring).
To further clarify, the first and second anchoring formations further i.e., in addition to the above, resist the first and second detachment forces as claimed because of their inherent inertia. See [0047]-[0048].
Islam does not teach wherein surfaces of the pre-mold material are coplanar with the first and second die pad surface.
Shim, however, teaches a sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (leadframe 100; fig. 8) [0050] wherein surfaces of the pre-mold material (first molding material; fig. 8) [0050] are coplanar with the first (top) and second (bottom) die pad surface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure of Islam to have coplanar surfaces with the pre-mold material and the first and second die pad surfaces to allow for subsequent materials to be deposited with differing coefficients of thermal expansion, thus resulting in higher durability, as taught by Shim [0054]-[0055].
Regarding claim 10, Islam teaches a substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-3, wherein the first anchoring formations (first anchor) are provided at (i.e., countering forces at) the first die pad surface (27) and the second anchoring formations (second anchor) are provided at (i.e., countering forces at) the second die pad surface (34).
Regarding claim 11, Islam teaches a substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-3, wherein each of the first (first anchor) and the second (second anchor) anchoring formations comprises a cutaway portion (portion of the spaces, see claim 9) of the peripheral edge (interpreted as “outer edge”) of the at least one die pad (30), wherein the pre-mold material (18) molded onto the sculptured electrically conductive laminar structure (10) penetrates into said cutaway portions (portion of spaces) of the peripheral edge (interpreted as “outer edge”) of the at least one die pad (30).
Regarding claim 12, Islam teaches a substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-3, wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor) comprises at least two first anchoring formations (first anchor) alternating with at least two second anchoring formations (second anchor). To further clarify, the term “alternate” is interpreted as at least being switching who goes first. For example, in fig. 2, from left to right, the first and second anchors alternate in who comes first.
Regarding claim 14, Islam teaches a substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-3, wherein said alternation equal numbers of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (10) is equally resistant to said first detachment forces (up) and to said second detachment forces (down) [0062]. To further clarify, with, relation to fig. 2 of Islam, a force exerted on the structure near element 28 (on both sides) would equally affect the structure, the substrate thus being equally resistant to both detachment forces.
Regarding claim 15, Islam teaches a method according to claim 9 in figs. 2-5, wherein said alternation comprises first anchoring formations (first anchor) greater in number than said second anchoring formations (second anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (200) is more resistant to said first detachment forces (up) than to said second detachment forces (down).
Shim, however, teaches a pre-molded lead frame forming method (abstract) in fig. 11 comprising more first anchoring formations (110) than second anchoring formations (200).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Islam to comprise more first anchoring formations than second anchoring formations to strengthen the laminar structure as taught by Shim in [0061].
To further clarify, with relation to the effect of the forces, a force exerted on the structure of Islam as modified by Shim would resist the first forces more than the second because of the greater number of first anchoring formations.
Regarding claim 17, Islam teaches a substrate in figs. 2-3, comprising: a substrate according to claim 9; and a semiconductor chip (20) mounted on the at least one die pad (30) surface (27) left exposed by the pre-mold material (18).
Claims 5 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20060255438 A1 to Omori et al. (hereinafter “Omori”).
Regarding claim 5, Islam does not teach a method according to claim 1 in figs. 1-6H, wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor) comprises a single first anchoring formation (first anchor) alternating with a single second anchoring formation (second anchor).
Omori, however, teaches a method of forming a lead frame package (abstract) in fig. 1B wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (see below in the annotated fig.) and second anchoring formations (see below in the annotated fig.) comprises a single first anchoring formation (annotated below) alternating with a single second anchoring formation (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Islam to comprise a single first anchor formation and a single second anchor formation to anchor the die to the substrate and enhance the adhesion level of the die pad and the pre molding material as taught by Omori in [0047].
PNG
media_image2.png
387
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1B of Omori
Regarding claim 13, Islam does not teach a substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-3, wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (first anchor) and second anchoring formations (second anchor) comprises a single first anchoring formation (first anchor) alternating with a single second anchoring formation (second anchor).
Omori, however, teaches a lead frame package (abstract) in fig. 1B wherein said alternation of first anchoring formations (see above in the annotated fig.) and second anchoring formations (see above in the annotated fig.) comprises a single first anchoring formation (annotated above) alternating with a single second anchoring formation (annotated above).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Islam to comprise a single first anchor formation and a single second anchor formation to anchor the die to the substrate as taught by Omori in [0047].
Claims 8 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam and Shim in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20180358286 A1 to Cadag et al. (hereinafter “Cadag”).
Regarding claim 8, Islam does not teach a method according to claim 1 in figs. 2-5, further comprising providing in said alternation second anchoring formations (second anchor) greater in number than said first anchoring formations (first anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (200) is more resistant to said second detachment forces (down) than to said first detachment forces (up).
Cadag, however, teaches a method in fig. 3E, further comprising providing in said alternation second anchoring formations (40) [0022] greater in number than said first anchoring formations (46) [0022], wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (70) [0029] is more resistant to said second detachment forces (down) than to said first detachment forces (up).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Shen to comprise more second anchoring formations than first anchoring formations to provide stronger material in vulnerable locations of the laminar pre-molded substrate as taught by Cadag in [0023].
To further clarify, with relation to the effect of the forces, a force exerted on the structure of Islam as modified by Cadag would resist the second forces more than the first because of the greater number of second anchoring formations.
Regarding claim 16, Islam does not teach substrate according to claim 9 in figs. 2-5, wherein said alternation comprises second anchoring formations (second anchor) greater in number than said first anchoring formations (first anchor), wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (200) is more resistant to said second detachment forces (down) than to said first detachment forces (up).
Cadag, however, teaches a method in fig. 3E, further comprising providing in said alternation second anchoring formations (40) [0022] greater in number than said first anchoring formations (46) [0022], wherein the laminar pre-molded substrate (70) [0029] is more resistant to said second detachment forces (down) than to said first detachment forces (up).
It would have been obvious to the POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the anchoring formations of Shen to comprise more second anchoring formations than first anchoring formations to provide stronger material in vulnerable locations of the laminar pre-molded substrate as taught by Cadag in [0023].
To further clarify, with relation to the effect of the forces, a force exerted on the structure of Islam as modified by Cadag would resist the second forces more than the first because of the greater number of second anchoring formations.
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 ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER whose telephone number is (703)756-5415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Drew Richards can be reached on (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892