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 .
This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 8/5/2026 that has been entered, wherein claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-24 are pending, claims 2, 6, and 11 are canceled and claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/2026 has been entered.
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)(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 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0395477 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic device(Fig. 2d), comprising:
a multilevel metallization structure(120, ¶0020) having multiple levels of conductive metal traces(horizontal electrical interconnect of 122, ¶0020) and vias(124, ¶0020) and polyimide insulator material(123, ¶0020), including a first level along a first side(128, ¶0020) and a final level along a second side(126, ¶0020), the first level including conductive metal leads(exposed surface of 122 along 128, exposed surface of 124, ¶0020, ¶0033) with exposed surfaces along the first side(128, ¶0020), and the final level including conductive metal pads(exposed surface of 122 along 126, ¶0020) with exposed surfaces along the second side(126, ¶0020);
a semiconductor die(130a, ¶0021) having conductive features, the semiconductor die(130a, ¶0021) flip chip attached to the second side(126, ¶0020) of the multilevel metallization structure(120, ¶0020) with the conductive features(112, ¶0018, ¶0021) connected to respective one of the conductive metal pads(exposed surface of 122 along 126, ¶0020); and
a package structure(136, ¶0022) that encloses the semiconductor die(130a, ¶0021), wherein:
the electronic device has a first side, a second side, a third side, a fourth side, a fifth side, and a sixth side;
the first side extends in a first plane of orthogonal first and second directions;
the second side extends in a second plane of the first and second directions and is spaced apart from the first side along a third direction that is orthogonal to the first and second directions;
the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sides extend from the first side to the second side along the third direction; and
the conductive metal leads(exposed surface of 122 along 128, exposed surface of 124, ¶0020, ¶0033) have surfaces exposed along the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sides(please see examiner annotated Fig. 2h, ¶0033), wherein exposed along the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sides are not attached to an electrical component(Fig. 2d).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the conductive metal leads(exposed surface of 122 along 128, exposed surface of 124, ¶0020, ¶0033) and the conductive metal pads(exposed surface of 122 along 126, ¶0020) include copper(¶0020).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein:
the conductive features(112, ¶0018, ¶0021) are connected to respective ones of a first set of the conductive metal pads(exposed surface of 122 along 126, ¶0020); and
the electronic device further comprises an additional die(130b, ¶0021) or a passive component connected to respective ones of a second set of the conductive metal pads(exposed surface of 122 along 126, ¶0020).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0395477 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 2.
The embodiment of fig. 2h of Lee is not relied on to teach the electronic device has a quad flat no-lead shape.
The embodiment of fig. 7 of Leah teaches an electronic device(Fig. 7) the electronic device(300) has a quad flat no-lead shape(320, ¶0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of fig. 2h of Lee, so that the electronic device has a quad flat no-lead shape, as taught by the embodiment of fig. 7 of Lee, so that the electronic device can be manufactured using less expensive components and a streamlined manufacturing process resulting in an electronic device that is less likely to fail and less expensive to manufacture resulting in a lower cost for consumers(¶0040).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0395477 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0005023 A1) both of record.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Lee is not relied on to teach the conductive metal leads(exposed surface of 122 along 128, exposed surface of 124, ¶0020, ¶0033) include a solderable finish on the exposed surfaces along the first side(128, ¶0020).
Chen teaches an electronic device(Fig. 2H) wherein the conductive metal leads(211, ¶0032) include a solderable finish(¶0032) on the exposed surfaces along the first side(21a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, so that the conductive metal leads include a solderable finish on the exposed surfaces along the first side, as taught by Lee, in order to bond electronic elements to the first side of the multilevel metallization structure(¶0032).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0395477 A1) of record in view of Sato et al. (US 2006/0138615 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Lee is not relied on to teach the conductive metal leads(exposed surface of 122 along 128, exposed surface of 124, ¶0020, ¶0033) include an indented undercut feature along the first side(128, ¶0020), the indented undercut feature not in direct contact with the polyimide insulator material(123, ¶0020).
Sato teaches an electronic device(Fig. 9) wherein the conductive metal leads(7, ¶0069) include an indented undercut feature(41, ¶0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, so that the conductive metal leads include an indented undercut feature, as taught by Sato, in order to increase the overall area of solder adhered to the lead resulting in improving the joining strength between the lead and solder(¶0014) and to allow a human inspector to easily inspect the condition of joining between the lead and solder from the exterior of the electronic device(¶0015).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-16 and 21-23 are allowed. Please see the office action dated 5/12/2025 for reasons for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but are moot Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based on a different figure in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights