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
Regarding the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 2 April 2026, Applicant’s amendments in the reply filed 22 May 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
PARK does not disclose the claimed "a lug boss that protrudes upwardly is provided on a side edge of the base island"
To support this argument, Applicant argues the interpretation and meaning of “lug boss”—to which a 140’ of the plurality of 140’s provided by PARK is mapped—by pointing to the description of 140’ provided by PARK and asserting this element is instead an “extended conductive lead structure” with a different intended purpose than the claimed “lug boss”.
This argument is not found persuasive.
As “lug boss” is not defined in the instant application, the Examiner is free to use any reasonable interpretation of “lug boss” in rejecting the instant claims. Further, as a common meaning of the term “boss” is simply a “protuberant part or body” (www.merriam-webster.com) and a common meaning of the term “lug” is simply “something that projects like an ear” (www.merriam-webster.com) the Examiner’s interpretation of a 140’ of PARK as a “lug boss” is proper, as these common meanings—both separately and together—describe a given 140’ of PARK.
Further, without admitting to the propriety of the difference in the intended purpose between a 140’ of PARK and the “lug boss” of the instant application—as asserted by Applicant—no such intended purpose is claimed. Therefore any such difference, if present, is moot.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
Because PARK lacks the claimed lug boss, it inherently fails to disclose “an upper surface of the lug boss is above a lower surface of the electromagnetic shielding layer”
To support this argument, Applicant again argues a difference in intended purpose between a 140’ of PARK and the “lug boss” of the instant application.
This argument is not found persuasive.
As PARK, indeed, teaches the claimed “lug boss”, PARK cannot inherently fail to disclose a subsequent structural limitation thereof. Further, without admitting to the propriety of the difference in the intended purpose between a 140’ of PARK and the “lug boss” of the instant application—as asserted by Applicant—no such intended purpose is claimed. Therefore any such difference, if present, is moot.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
The technical concepts of PARK and the present application regarding "electromagnetic shielding" and "grounding" are completely different.
To support this argument, Applicant provides a non-limiting description of the technical concepts of PARK and the instant application, which appear to be derived from the respective specifications.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Without admitting to the propriety of the difference in said concepts, prior art rejections do not regard differences in concepts derived from the specification of the instant application and the prior art of record. Therefore any such difference, if present, is moot.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
The "second lead 140" in PARK cannot be equated to the "protruding platform" in the present application.
To support this argument, Applicant provides a reasoning based on the function of a 140’ of PARK, presumably derived from the associated specification, and compares this to a function of “compensating vertical gaps to compensate for electromagnetic shielding”, presumably derived from the instant specification.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Without admitting to the propriety of the difference in the function of parts between PARK and the instant application, no such function “compensating vertical gaps to compensate for electromagnetic shielding” is claimed. Therefore any such difference, if present, is moot.
On page 7 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
PARK does not disclose that "the electromagnetic shielding layer is electrically connected to the grounding lead via an electrical connector".
To support this argument, Applicant provides a non-limiting interpretation of PARK—which pivots on the interpretation and meaning of “electrical connector”—asserting “PARK relies on direct physical contact between the shielding layer and the exposed surfaces of the leadframe. There is no intermediate "electrical connector" connecting the shielding layer to a grounding lead”.
This argument is not found persuasive.
As “electrical connector” is not defined in the instant application, the Examiner is free to use any reasonable interpretation of “electrical connector” in rejecting the instant claims. As such, the Examiner asserts any object providing an electrical connection may be considered an “electrical connector” under a broad but reasonable interpretation, which accurately describes a given 140’ of PARK (PARK, Par. 49).
On page 7 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
PARK completely fails to disclose that "an upper surface of the base island is higher than an upper surface of the lead".
To support this argument, Applicant provides a non-limiting interpretation of PARK, which pivots on the interpretation and meaning of “an upper surface of the base island”.
This argument is not found persuasive.
As “an upper surface of the base island” is not defined in the instant application, the Examiner is free to use any reasonable interpretation of “an upper surface of the base island” in rejecting the instant claims. As such, the Examiner asserts the base island of PARK may comprise at least one 140’ of the plurality of 140’s (PARK Fig. 3E & 4A), which satisfies “an upper surface (PARK Fig. 4A: upper surface of the given 140’) of the base island (PARK Fig. 4A: 110’) is higher than an upper surface of the lead (PARK Fig. 4A: 130’)”
On page 7 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues:
PARK in view of WATANABE does not disclose that "an interval between the lead and the electromagnetic shielding layer ranges from 200 µm to 400 µm".
This argument is found persuasive but is now moot in light of the new rejection and prior art of record used therein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (US 20110049685 A1) in view of SAN ANTONIO (US 20120126378 A1).
Examiner’s Note
For the following, consider the original figures of PARK and SAN ANTONIO as well as the annotated figures provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1,
PARK discloses:
A quad flat no-leads (QFN) packaging structure (Fig. 3E – 4B: 500; Par. 74), comprising:
a package frame (Fig. 3E: 100’; Par. 59),
a chip (Fig. 4A/4B: 410; Par. 75) and
a plastic packaging layer (Fig. 4A: 430; Par. 6 – 7 & 75),
wherein the package frame comprises
at least one base island (Fig. 4A: 110’; Par. 66), and
leads (Fig. 4A/4B: 130’/120’; Par. 67) distributed on at least one side of the base island;
the chip is provided on the base island and electrically connected to the leads; and
(Fig. 4A/4B: 410 is provided on 110’ and electrically connected via 420s—Par. 67—to 130’ and 110’, which is electrically connected via 111’/121’ to 120’.)
the plastic packaging layer covers the package frame and the chip, and
(Fig. 4A/4B: 430 covers 110’ & 130’/120’—of which 100’ is comprised—and 410.)
side surfaces and a bottom surface of the lead are exposed to the plastic packaging layer (As seen in Fig. 4A/4B);
wherein the QFN packaging structure further comprises
an electromagnetic shielding layer (Fig. 4A/4B: 540; Par. 75) that covers side surfaces and a top surface of the plastic packaging layer;
the leads include a grounding lead (Fig. 3E/4B: 120’; Par. 72), and
the electromagnetic shielding layer and the leads are provided at intervals (Fig. 4A/4B: gaps between 540 and 130’/120’); and
the electromagnetic shielding layer is electrically connected to the grounding lead (Par. 71) via an electrical connector (Fig. 3E/4A: one of the plurality of 140’s; Par. 71);
a lug boss (Fig. 3E/4A: another of the plurality of 140’s) that protrudes upwardly is provided on a side edge of the base island, and
an upper surface of the lug boss is above a lower surface of the electromagnetic shielding layer (As seen in Fig. 4A); and
an upper surface of the base island (Fig. 4A: the upper surface of yet another of the plurality of 140’s) is higher than an upper surface of the lead (As seen in Fig. 4A/4B)…
PARK does not disclose:
an interval between the lead and the electromagnetic shielding layer ranges from 200 µm to 400 µm.
SAN ANTONIO discloses:
an interval (Fig. 4F: INT) between the lead (Fig. 4D – 4F: 22) and the electromagnetic shielding layer (Fig. 4E – 4F: 50) ranges from [100 µm to about 130 µm] (Par. 36 – 37).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of PARK with those of SAN ANTONIO such that leadframes of a plurality of QFN packaging structures, as taught by PARK, may be singulated to form individual QFN packaging structures, as taught by SAN ANTONIO, as PARK teaches said singulation (PARK, Par. 8) but does not provide details thereof. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for details of such a singulation recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07) where the singulation of SAN ANTONIO meets these criteria, as the QFN packaging structures of PARK and SAN ANTONIO are similar in both design (PARK, Fig. 4A; SAN ANTONIO, Fig. 4F) and purpose (PARK, Par. 3; SAN ANTONIO, Par. 1).
As a result of the aforementioned combination, REG1 and REG2 of PARK (PARK, Fig. 4A) take the form of REG1 and REG2 of SAN ANTONIO (SAN ANTONIO, Fig. 4F), respectively. And, in light of said combination, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an interval between the lead and the electromagnetic shielding layer to range from 200 µm to 400 µm, as claimed, rather than said interval to range from 100 µm to about 130 µm, as taught by SAN ANTONIO, because Applicant does not disclose said interval from 200 µm to 400 µm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that said interval from 100 µm to about 130 µm of PARK in view of SAN ANTONIO does not. Specifically, Applicant discloses said interval “ensure[s] that no short circuit occurs between the electromagnetic shielding layer and the lead” (Instant, Par. 39), and SAN ANTONIO similarly discloses “It is desirable to provide an RF shield for a package…while avoiding shorting to the leads” (SAN ANTONIO, Par. 9). That is, the instant specification and PARK in view of SAN ANTONIO teach the same criticality.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either said interval from 200 µm to 400 µm, as claimed, or said interval from 100 µm to about 130 µm, taught in SAN ANTONIO, as the instant and referenced inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and both interval ranges would perform the same function of avoiding short circuits between the electromagnetic shielding layer and the leads equally well, considering the QFN packaging structures of the instant application and PARK in view of SAN ANTONIO are similar in both design (Instant, Fig. 7; PARK, Fig. 4A; SAN ANTONIO, Fig. 4F) and purpose (Instant, Par. 4 – 5; PARK, Par. 3; SAN ANTONIO, Par. 1). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify PARK in view of SAN ANTONIO to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding Claim 2,
PARK discloses:
The QFN packaging structure according to claim 1,
wherein a conductive coating layer (Fig. 4A: gold or silver plating of 112’; Par. 67) is provided between the grounding lead and the electromagnetic shielding layer, and
(112’—and thus its gold or silver plating—is provided on 110’ in Fig. 4A and, thus 110’ in Fig. 4B. As 110’ is between the 120’ on the right of Fig. 4B and the vertical sidewall of 540 on the left of Fig. 4B, the gold or silver plating of 112’ is provided between 120’ and 540.)
the electromagnetic shielding layer and the grounding lead are electrically connected by the conductive coating layer.
(Fig. 4A/4B: 540 and 120’ are electrically connected via 110’—Par. 71—which includes the silver or gold plating of 112’)
Regarding Claim 3,
PARK discloses:
The QFN packaging structure according to claim 2,
wherein the conductive coating layer is a conductive solder paste or a metal conductive layer (Par. 67).
Regarding Claim 4,
PARK discloses:
The QFN packaging structure according to claim 3,
wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer (540) is a metal film material such as copper (440 may be copper, Par. 71. Thus, 540 may be copper, Par. 75), stainless steel, or titanium sputtering sandwich metal, or a conductive composite material such as a conductive resin having high-density metal filler of silver/copper, or a combination of at least two of the materials.
SAN ANTONIO discloses:
wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer (Fig. 4F: 50) is a metal film material (Par. 38, 50 may be tin, which is an example of a metal film material) such as copper, stainless steel, or titanium sputtering sandwich metal, or a conductive composite material such as a conductive resin having high-density metal filler of silver/copper, or a combination of at least two of the materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview—preferably at 4 P.M. (EST)—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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights