Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the request for reconsideration filed on November 12th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn.
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 filed November 12th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 8-12, “Remarks”) that Yeo does not support examiner’s determination as reference numbers 132, 130, and 120 do not constitute “a mold” wherein “a mold” is defined to be a hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material. Moreover, none of the mentions of “mold” or “mold tool” in Yeo describe or show “a mold” as defined above. As such, while each of 132, 130, and 120 would be contained within the mold just prior to, and during, the injection of the molding material into the mold compound, and each are eventually surrounded by mold material during the molding process, none of them can be considered a mold.
While Yeo does not directly refer to 132, 130, and/or 120 as “a mold”, the components serve as a “hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material” as defined by the applicant above. Yeo states that the encapsulating process may be carried by molding and that each encapsulating body 124 may be a molded block of mold compound ([0217]). As seen in figure 10, the liquid mold compound 124 fills the recess 132 in between 120 and 130 and thus the collective of 132, 130, and 120 can be considered a “hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material” as it results in a molded block. Additionally, Yeo states that 120 may remain exposed with respect to the encapsulant body 124 and that tie bars 128 of leadframe 130 may remain exposed with respect to the encapsulant body 124 ([0217]). Therefore, it cannot be considered that 120 and 130 are entirely surrounded by the encapsulant body 124 during the molding process as applicant argues.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 13-14, “Remarks”) that Yeo may teach singulation of the encapsulant bodies 124, there is no teaching or suggestion that the molds themselves are singulated much less cut into. The molds are merely the forms that shape the molding material and are typically removed prior to singulation of the molded columns into individual molded package structures. As such, Yeo fails to teach or suggest “inserting a blade into the respective column cavities of the mold between adjacent unit regions of the lead frame panel to separate individual molded package structures in the respective column cavities of the mold along a column direction”.
The examiner considers the collection of 132, 130, and 120 to be the mold and the respective column cavities of the mold to be the space between 132, 130, and 120. In this instance, the encapsulant bodies 124 are formed in the respective column cavities of the mold as shown in figure 10 of Yeo and the encapsulant bodies 124 are mechanically sawed and singulated as shown in figure 12 of Yeo. Neither 130 nor 120 are removed prior to singulation and therefore it can be considered that the blade used to singulate is inserted into the respective column cavities of the mold.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo et al. (2022/0199478 A1; hereinafter Yeo).
Regarding Claim 1, Yeo (figs. 8-12) teaches a method comprising:
injecting molding compound ([0217], 124, see fig. 10) into respective column cavities ([0204], region between 132, 130, and 120, see fig. 8) of a mold (132, 130, 120) to enclose semiconductor dies ([0204], 104) of respective unit regions (region where each semiconductor die 104 is formed) of a lead frame panel ([0204], 130) in the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120); and
inserting a blade ([0227], mechanically sawing) into the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (132, 130, 120) between adjacent unit regions of the lead frame panel (130) to separate individual molded package structures ([0226], see fig. 12) in the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (132, 130, 120) along a column direction (see fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Yeo (figs. 8-12) teaches the method of claim 1, comprising filling the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) with the molding compound (124) before inserting the blade ([0226], structure of fig. 11 where molding compound 124 is formed may then be singularized in fig. 12) into the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120).
Regarding Claim 9, Yeo (figs. 8-12) teaches the method of claim 1, comprising inserting the blade at different locations (see fig. 12) along the column direction for adjacent respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (132, 130, 120).
Regarding Claim 10, Yeo (figs. 8-12) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring blade insertion locations ([0228], mechanically sawing at selectable horizontal positions) for the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (132, 130, 120) based on the respective unit regions of the lead frame panel (130).
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent 7,763,958 B1; hereinafter Lim).
Regarding Claim 2, Yeo doesn’t teach the method of claim 1, further comprising inserting a second blade into the respective column cavities of the mold to separate three or more molded package structures in the respective column cavities of the mold.
However, Lim teaches inserting a second blade (Col. 7, Lines 50-56, parallel saw blades) [] to separate three or more molded package structures (Col. 7, Lines 57-59) []. Lim also teaches that the use of parallel saw blades is a more efficient sawing method (Col. 7, Lines 46-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Yeo to include the sawing method of Lim to more efficiently saw individual packages.
As a result, the combination of Yeo and Lim teaches that the inserting a second blade of Lim is performed into the respective column cavities of the mold of Yeo.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yeo and Lim teaches the method of claim 2, comprising filling the respective column cavities (Yeo, region between 132, 130, and 120) with the molding compound (Yeo, 124) before inserting the blade and the second blade (Lim, parallel saw blades) into the respective column cavities (Yeo, region between 132, 130, and 120).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo and Lim as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Zenz et al. (2014/0110842 A1; hereinafter Zenz).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yeo and Lim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein inserting the blade (Lim, parallel saw blades) into the respective column cavities (Yeo, region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (Yeo, 132, 130, 120) comprises: inserting first and second upper blades (Lim, parallel saw blades) into respective upper column cavities (Yeo, region between 132, 130, and 120) of an upper portion of the mold (Yeo, 132, 130, 120) between the adjacent unit regions; and inserting first and second lower blades into respective lower column cavities of a lower portion of the mold between the adjacent unit regions.
However, Yeo and Lim don’t teach inserting first and second lower blades into respective lower column cavities of a lower portion of the mold between the adjacent unit regions.
Zenz (figs. 4F-G) teaches inserting [] upper blades ([0043], 10) [] between the adjacent unit regions ([0043], devices 480); and inserting [] lower blades ([0043], 15) [] between the adjacent unit regions (480). Zenz also teaches that this method of sawing reduces the area of unprotected side faces of the package ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Yeo and Lim to include the sawing method of Zenz to reduce the area of unprotected side faces of the package.
As a result, the combination teaches that the inserting upper and lower blades of Zenz is performed into respective upper and lower column cavities of Yeo. Furthermore, Lim is still depended upon to teach efficient sawing methods and is applied to both the upper and lower blades to further increase efficiency.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yeo, Lim, and Zenz teaches the method of claim 3, comprising filling the respective upper and lower column cavities (Yeo, upper and lower halves of the region between 132, 130, and 120) with the molding compound (Yeo, 124) before inserting the first and second (Lim, parallel blades) upper blades (Zenz, 10) into the respective upper column cavities (Yeo, upper half of the region between 132, 130, and 120) and before inserting the first and second (Lim, parallel blades) lower blades (Zenz, 15) into the respective lower column cavities (Yeo, lower half of the region between 132, 130, and 120).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zenz.
Regarding Claim 6, Yeo (figs. 8-12) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein inserting the blade (see fig. 12) into the respective column cavities (region between 132, 130, and 120) of the mold (132, 130, 120) comprises: inserting an upper blade (see fig. 12) into respective upper column cavities (upper half of the region between 132, 130, and 120) of an upper portion of the mold (132, 130, 120) between the adjacent unit regions; and inserting a lower blade into respective lower column cavities of a lower portion of the mold between the adjacent unit regions.
However, Yeo doesn’t teach inserting a lower blade into respective lower column cavities of a lower portion of the mold between the adjacent unit regions.
Zenz (figs. 4F-G) teaches inserting an upper blade ([0043], 10) [] between the adjacent unit regions ([0043], devices 480); and inserting a lower blade ([0043], 15) [] between the adjacent unit regions (480). Zenz also teaches that this method of sawing reduces the area of unprotected side faces of the package ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Yeo to include the sawing method of Zenz to reduce the area of unprotected side faces of the package.
As a result, the combination teaches that the inserting upper and lower blades of Zenz is performed into respective upper and lower column cavities of Yeo.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yeo and Zenz teaches the method of claim 6, comprising filling the respective upper and lower column cavities (Yeo, upper and lower halves of the region between 132, 130, and 120) with the molding compound (Yeo, 124) before inserting the upper blade (Zenz, 10) into the respective upper column cavities (Yeo, upper half of the region between 132, 130, and 120) and before inserting the lower blade (Zenz, 15) into the respective lower column cavities (Yeo, lower half of the region between 132, 130, and 120).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 13, 2026