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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered. No claim(s) has/have been canceled or added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-18 are pending in the application with claim 17-18 withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
The priority date on the ADS incorrectly lists the priority data as September 14, 2014 instead of September 14, 2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2 reference numerals 120 and 118 appear to be pointing to the same element of the semiconductor device. Moreover, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second cooling systems positioned on the top and bottom side of the semiconductor device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madrid et al. (US 2007/161151, hereinafter “Madrid `151”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Madrid `151 teaches in Figs. 1-6 (Figs. 4 and 6 shown below) and related text, a semiconductor device comprising:
a leadframe (106, 113 and 101, Figs. 1 and 6 and ¶¶[0032] and [0035]-[0036], Madrid teaches that lead frame include a die attach pads and leads, where the die is attached to the lead frame);
a die (112, Fig. 6 and ¶[0035]) attached to the leadframe (i.e. portion 101 of the leadframe, Fig. 6) using a first solder (115, Fig. 6 and ¶[0035]);
a source clip (105, Fig. 6 and ¶[0032]) and a gate clip (104, Fig. 6 and ¶[0032] attached to the die using a second solder (117, Fig. 6 and ¶[0038])
a drain clip (i.e. drain thermal clip 101, Fig. 6 and ¶[0032]) attached to the leadframe (i.e. 106, 113, ¶[0032], drain clip 101 together with the lead frame form a lead frame similar to that disclosed by the Applicant that includes elements 116 and 102, Fig. 2 and ¶[0039] of the specification as published);
wherein the semiconductor device is inverted, so that the source clip (105, Fig. 6) and the gate clip (104, Figs. 2 and 6 ) are positioned on a bottom side of the semiconductor device (¶[0035]);
wherein the leadframe (drain clip 101, Figs. 1 and 6) is positioned on a top side of the semiconductor device so that the leadframe is a top exposed drain clip (101, Fig. 6); and
wherein the source clip (105, Fig. 6) and/or the gate clip (104, Fig. 6) comprise a half cut locking feature (116, 118, Figs. 4, 6, ¶¶[0034] and [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Madrid `151 teaches wherein the half cut locking feature (116, 118, Fig. 4) is formed as a wing and located at the sides of the source clip and the gate clip (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3 (1), Madrid `151 teaches wherein the half cut locking feature (116, 118, Fig. 4) is about 50% as thick, as a thickness of the source clip and/or the gate clip (Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto et al. (US 2006/177967, hereinafter “Muto”, previously cited) in view of Madrid et al. (US 2009/0057852, hereinafter “Madrid `852”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Muto teaches in Figs. 1-5 and 11-30 (Figs. 4-5 shown below) and related text, a semiconductor device (1, Fig. 4 and ¶[0077]) comprising:
a leadframe (e.g. 22, that includes source and gate portions, Figs. 4-5, 15-16 and ¶[0107]);
a die (2, Figs. 4-5 and ¶[0077]) attached to the leadframe using a first solder (11, Figs. 4-5 and ¶[0082]);
a source clip (3, Figs. 2, 4-5, 15-16 and ¶¶[0082]) and a gate clip (4, Figs. 2, 4-5 and ¶[0082] attached to the die using a second solder (11, Fig. 4 and ¶[0082])
a drain clip (5, Figs. 1-2, 4-5, 11-16, and ¶[0082]) attached to the leadframe (Figs. 4-5, 11-12 and ¶[0107]);
wherein the semiconductor device is inverted, so that the source clip (3, Figs. 1-2, 4-5) and the gate clip (4, Figs. 1-2 and 4-5) are positioned on a bottom side of the semiconductor device;
wherein the leadframe (Figs. 1-2, 4-5 and 15-16) is positioned on a top side of the semiconductor device so that the leadframe is a top exposed drain clip (5, Figs. 4-5).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
369
623
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Muto, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the source clip and/or the gate clip comprise a half cut locking feature.
Madrid `852, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Figs. 3-5 (Fig. 3 shown below) and related text, a source clip (214, Figs. 3-4 and ¶[0032]) and/or the gate clip (11, Figs. 3-4 and ¶[0032]) comprise a half cut locking feature (34, 31(a), Figs. 3-5, ¶¶[0040]-[0041]) in order to allow the molding material to lock to the leadframe (¶[0040]).
PNG
media_image5.png
390
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the half cut locking features disclosed by Madrid `852 on the source and gate clips disclosed by Muto, as doing so would allow the molding material to lock to the leadframe
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the half cut locking feature is formed as a wing and located at the sides of the source clip and the gate clip (Madrid `852, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 3 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the half cut locking feature (Madrid `852, 31(a) or 34, Figs. 3-4) is about 50% as thick, as a thickness of the source clip and/or the gate clip (Madrid `852, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the half cut locking feature, the source clip and the gate clip are made of copper (Muto, ¶[0082] and Madrid `852, ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 5 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the drain clip (Muto, 5, Fig. 4) comprises a dual bending (Muto, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `397 discloses wherein the semiconductor device is selected from the group consisting of: a PQFN semiconductor device, a HEMT semiconductor device, and a MOSFET semiconductor device (Muto, ¶[0080] and Madrid `852, ¶[0039]).
Regarding claim 7 (1), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses further comprising two cooling systems, a first cooling system positioned on the top side on the semiconductor device (Muto, ¶[0147]) and a second cooling system positioned on the bottom side of the semiconductor device (Muto, ¶[0147]).
Regarding claim 8 (2), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the half cut locking feature is about 50% as thick, as a thickness of the source clip and/or the gate clip (Madrid `852, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9 (5), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bended drain clip is made of copper (Muto, ¶[0082] and Madrid `852, ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 10 (5), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending has a bending angle that is about 90 degrees (Muto, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11 (5), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending is arranged to prevent any mechanical tilting within the semiconductor device (i.e. since the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 disclose a drain clip with dual bending such clip would serve the same function as claimed).
Regarding claim 12 (5), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending is arranged to maintain a same level for all parts of the semiconductor device, allowing both drain terminals to be exposed on a top and a bottom side of the package (5e and 5f, Muto, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13 (9), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending has a bending angle that is about 90 degrees (Muto, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14 (9), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending is arranged to prevent any mechanical tilting within the semiconductor device (i.e. since the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 disclose a drain clip with dual bending such clip would serve the same function as claimed).
Regarding claim 15 (9), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending is arranged to maintain a same level for all parts of the semiconductor device, allowing both drain terminals to be exposed on a top and a bottom side of the package (5e and 5f, Muto, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16 (10), the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 discloses wherein the dual bending is arranged to prevent any mechanical tilting within the semiconductor device (i.e. since the combined teaching of Muto and Madrid `852 disclose a drain clip with dual bending such clip would serve the same function as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To begin with respect to the drawings the Applicant argues that “elements 118 and 120 are not pointing to the same element”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in paragraph [0037] of the specification as published, element 120, Fig. 2 is a mold, while element 118 is a half cut locking for source clip, whereas the lead line from reference number 118 in Fig. 2 simply leads to the mold material not the half cut locking for source clip. Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s argument both refence numbers 118 and 120 point to the same element of the device, such as mold.
Moreover, on pages 7-9 of the filed response, the Applicant argues that as currently presented claim 1 recites “a drain clip attached to the leadframe” and that “the leadframe is a top exposed drain clip.” The Applicant then states that “[t]he language of the claim therefore expressly recites that the leadframe itself forms the top exposed drain”. Specifically, the Applicant argues that claim 1 positively recites: "a leadframe," to which "a die [is] attached ... using a first solder," and "a drain clip attached to the leadframe," where the device is inverted "so that the leadframe is a top exposed drain clip." Applicant's specification distinguishes these structures and their roles: "A semiconductor device 100 comprises a leadframe 102, a die 106 attached to the leadframe 102 via a first solder 104... The leadframe 102 is acting as an exposed drain 112 of the semiconductor device, and this exposed drain 112 is on a second side 124 of the semiconductor device." Present Application, Paragraphs [0024]-[0027] . Madrid '151, by contrast, never discloses a leadframe that itself is exposed as the drain clip, nor does it disclose the die being attached to a leadframe with a first solder. Madrid '151 uses discrete pad structures and a thermal clip: [0032] The device includes a thermal clip 101, a gate lead 104, source leads 105, drain leads 106, a source pad 108, a gate pad 109, and nonconductive molding material 103." Madrid '151, Paragraph [0034]-[0035] The half-etching 114 around the thermal clip 101 locks the nonconductive molding material 103. Similarly, the half-etching 116 around the source pad 108 locks the nonconductive molding material 10...solder paste 115 connects the thermal clip 101 to the drain region of the flip chip 112... The gate bump 111 and gate pad 109 and the source bumps 110 and source pad 108 are respectively attached by solder paste. There is no disclosure in Madrid '151 that the "leadframe" exists as a unified structural member to which the die is attached with a first solder. The die is attached to the thermal clip (drain side) and to pad structures (source/gate side) with solder paste. Madrid '151's "drain leads 106" are merely leads, not a leadframe, and the top-exposed element is expressly the thermal clip ("top-exposed thermal clip 100"), not a leadframe that itself functions as the exposed drain clip. As Madrid '151's "drain thermal clip 101" is a distinct clip mechanically/electrically coupled to drain leads, and not "leadframe [that] is a top exposed drain" as recited in claim 1. For the reasons given above, Madrid '151 fails to disclose or render obvious independent claim 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as currently presented the claim requires a drain clip to be attached to the lead frame and exposed at a top. The term “attached” requires that the drain clip be separate and distinct form the lead frame. This interpretation is consistent with the specification (paragraphs [0015]-[0020] of the specification as published) which states that the drain clip is attached to a lead frame (¶[0020]) after it is created (¶[0019]). While the lead frame may be considered as including the drain clip after the drain clip is attached thereto, it is the top of the drain clip attached to the lead frame that is exposed rather than the top of lead frame to which the drain clip is attached. In other words, it is the drain clip (thermal clip) attached to the lead frame that is exposed at the top side, rather than the lead frame itself that includes or defines a drain clip (i.e. lead frame itself forming or acting as the top exposed drain), as argued by the Applicant. Accordingly, in view of the above, the Madrid `151 reference is considered as explicitly teaching a drain clip (i.e. thermal clip 101) attached to the lead frame, wherein the drain clip is exposed at the top (Figs. 1-6).
Second, in response to the Applicant’s argument that Madrid `151 does not disclose a lead frame or a die being attached to the lead frame with a solder. It is noted that the entire disclosure of Madrid `151 is directed to a packaged semiconductor device that includes a lead frame and a die attached thereto, with the drain clip (thermal clip) attached to a drain region of the die, and the lead frame. In paragraph [0036], Madrid `151 explicitly defines a lead frame as including a die attach pad and leads, and in paragraph [0035] Madrid `151 explicitly states that the die is attached to the die attach pad of the lead frame with solder. Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, Madrid '151 both explicitly defines what constitutes a lead frame, and also that the die is attached to the lead frame (i.e. die attach pad of the lead frame). This is in contrast to the Applicant’s specification that appears to be broadly pointing to element 102 in the figures as corresponding the lead frame, which in one instant appears to define a drain clip (act as a drain clip) and, in another, as having a drain clip attached thereto. Moreover, the specification also fails to provide any discussion of the lead frame as being a “unified structural member to which the die is attached with a first solder”, as argued by the Applicant.
Third, in response to the Applicant’s argument that “Madrid '151's "drain leads 106" are merely leads, not a leadframe, and the top-exposed element is expressly the thermal clip ("top-exposed thermal clip 100"), not a leadframe that itself functions as the exposed drain clip. As Madrid '151's "drain thermal clip 101" is a distinct clip mechanically/electrically coupled to drain leads, and not "leadframe [that] is a top exposed drain" as recited in claim 1”. It is noted that Madrid `151’s lead frame is similar the lead frame disclosed by the Applicant, in that both appear to include two elements: the lead frame (prior to the attachment of a drain clip) and the drain clip. Namely, as discussed by the Applicant on page 9 of the filed response, since the Applicant’s lead frame acts as an exposed drain clip, the drain clip and the lead frame to which it is attached, must together be considered as a lead frame. This is similar to the lead frame disclosed by Madrid `151, where the drain clip and the lead frame, prior to the attachment of the drain clip, are together considered as a lead frame. Thus, when the lead frame of Madrid `151 is considered as including the attached drain clip (thermal clip), Madrid `151 then can be considered as disclosing a die attached to the lead frame.
Lastly, on pages 10-1 of the filed response, the Applicant argues that “independent claim 1 positively recites “ a drain clip attached to the leadframe", which requires a drain clip that is a component distinct from, and attached to, the leadframe. Muto's "drain terminal 5" is not a separate clip "attached to" a leadframe. It is an integral portion of the very same leadframe strip. Muto expressly teaches that the drain terminal portions (5a, 5b) and the stepped portion 5c are "integrally formed using the same electrically conductive material," and that they are part of the lead frame member 21/25 that is later singulated. For example, at paragraph [0085], Muto states: "The drain terminal 5 includes a first portion 5a, a second portion 5b, and a stepped portion 5c... The first portion 5a, the second portion 5b and the stepped portion 5c are integrally formed using the same electrically conductive material". See also, Muto at paragraph [0107] "The lead frame (first conductor member) 21 has a drain terminal portion (first conductor portion) 25... These portions are formed integrally". Muto fails to disclose a separate drain clip attached to a leadframe …Muto's drain terminal is integrally formed with the leadframe, not attached as a separate component. Thus, according to the Applicant, Muto fails to disclose a "drain clip attached to the leadframe" as recited in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
To begin with, it is noted that, whereas before the Applicant argued that it was the lead frame that defined the drain clip (lead frame acting as drain clip), the Applicant now argues that the drain clip needs to be “a component distinct from, and attached to, the leadframe”. Assuming, and as discussed above, that the drain clip is a distinct component that is attached to the lead frame, Muto explicitly teaches a drain clip being attached to a lead frame. Specifically, Muto teaches in Figs. 1-5 and 11-18 and related text, a lead frame (22, Figs. 1-5, 15-18 and ¶[0107]) that includes source and gate terminals (Figs. 1-5, 15-18 and ¶[0107]) and a drain clip (5, Figs. 1-5 and 11-16 and ¶[0107]) attached to the lead frame (22, Figs. 1-5 and 15-18). Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s argument Muto explicitly teaches a drain clip, that is a separate element from the lead frame, and attached to the lead frame.
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 ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights