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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because for the phrasing “attaching a second semiconductor die attached to the second conductive die pad.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “a molded package structure…” in lines 10-13. It is unclear whether this is a new molded package structure or is referencing the molded package structure recited in claim 31 lines 9-12. Examiner is interpreting the molded package structure recited in claim 32 to be the same as that recited in claim 31.
Claim 36 recites “The device of claim 31” in line 1. However, claim 31 recites “a method for fabricating an electronic device” [emphasis added]. It is therefore unclear under which statutory category claim 36 is directed. Examiner is interpreting claim 36 to depend upon “the method of claim 31”.
Claim 36 recites “a lamination structure [of the magnetic assembly]” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same magnetic assembly including a lamination structure as that recited in claim 31 line 7. Examiner is interpreting the lamination structure recited in claim 36 to be the same as that recited in claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0252533 (O'Sullivan).
As to Claim 21, O’Sullivan teaches a method for fabricating an electronic device, the method comprising:
directly connecting a conductive die pad to a first set of conductive leads (leadframe below 200 connected to leads labeled in annotated Fig 10);
directly connecting a conductive support structure to a second set of the conductive leads (leadframe below 20 connected to right-side leadframe);
attaching a semiconductor die to the conductive die pad (200 on pad);
attaching a magnetic assembly to the conductive support structure (20 on conductive support structure); and
enclosing the conductive die pad, the conductive support structure, the semiconductor die, the magnetic assembly and portion of the conductive leads with a package structure (assembly of Fig 10 embedded in a mold compound ¶0039).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 28, O’Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the magnetic assembly includes:
a lamination structure, including a patterned conductive feature that forms a part of a passive electronic component (20 comprises coils 22 and 24 with insulating layer 23 between; i.e., 20 is a lamination structure. Coils 22/24 are magnetically coupled, constituting a passive transformer),
a first core structure attached to a first side of the lamination structure (22), and
a second core structure attached to a second side of the lamination structure (24), wherein the lamination structure is attached to the conductive support structure (20 attached to conductive support structure).
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(s) 15-17, 19-20, and 22-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Sullivan and further in view of JP 2010219244 (Yoshio). For convenience the examiner cites to a machine-translation by Espacenet of Yoshio.
As to Claim 15, O’Sullivan teaches a method for fabricating an electronic device, the method comprising:
providing a leadframe structure (Fig 10, 202+212), including a conductive die pad (part of 202 under 200) connected to a first set of conductive leads (labeled in annotated Fig 10), and a conductive support structure (212) connected to a second set of the conductive leads (labeled in annotate Fig 10) and spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure (202, 212 spaced apart);
attaching a magnetic assembly to the conductive support structure (20 on 212);
attaching a semiconductor die to the conductive die pad (200 on 202);
forming a first connection between a first conductive feature of the semiconductor die and a first conductive lead of the conductive leads (204 connects 200 to a first conductive lead), and a second connection between a second conductive feature of the semiconductor die and a conductive feature of the magnetic assembly (220 connects 200 to 20);
attaching a second semiconductor die to a second conductive die pad (210 attached to portion of leadframe beneath it), and
enclosing the conductive die pad, the conductive support structure, the semiconductor die, the magnetic assembly and portions of the conductive leads in a package structure (assembly of Fig 10 embedded in a mold compound ¶0039).
O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach the second conductive die pad being spaced apart from the conductive support structure of the leadframe structure.
Yoshio teaches a device similar to that of O’Sullivan, and explicitly teaches the device having a magnetic assembly attached to a conductive support structure, wherein the conductive support structure is spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe (Yoshio Fig 1, structure with inductor “L” spaced from structure having semiconductor dies thereon, seen more clearly in the side-view of Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the method of fabricating the device of O’Sullivan with the space apart of the magnetic assembly from the other conductive structures as taught by Yoshio in order to prevent the heat generated by the magnetic assembly from conducting to the die pad structures (Yoshio ¶0047).
As to Claim 16, O’Sullivan teaches a method for fabricating an electronic device, the method comprising:
providing a leadframe structure (Fig 10, 202+212), including a conductive die pad (part of 202 under 200) connected to a first set of conductive leads (labeled in annotated Fig 10), and a conductive support structure (212) connected to a second set of the conductive leads (labeled in annotate Fig 10) and spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure (202, 212 spaced apart);
attaching a magnetic assembly to the conductive support structure (20 on 212);
attaching a semiconductor die to the conductive die pad (200 on 202);
forming a first connection between a first conductive feature of the semiconductor die and a first conductive lead of the conductive leads (204 connects 200 to a first conductive lead), and a second connection between a second conductive feature of the semiconductor die and a conductive feature of the magnetic assembly (220 connects 200 to 20);
attaching a second semiconductor die to a second conductive die pad (210 attached to portion of leadframe beneath it)
forming a third connection between a first conductive feature of the second semiconductor die and a second one of the conductive leads (unlabeled wires in Fig 10 connect 210 to portions of the leadframe 212), and a fourth connection between a second conductive feature of the second semiconductor die and a second conductive feature of the magnetic assembly (230 connects 210 to 20); and
enclosing the conductive die pad, the conductive support structure, the semiconductor die, the magnetic assembly and portions of the conductive leads in a package structure (assembly of Fig 10 embedded in a mold compound ¶0039).
O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach the second conductive die pad being spaced apart from the conductive support structure.
Yoshio, for the same reasons as those outlined in the claim 15 rejection, teach the remaining limitations of claim 16.
As to Claim 17, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 15. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the magnetic assembly includes a lamination structure with a patterned conductive feature that forms a part of a passive electronic component (20 comprises coils 22 and 24 with insulating layer 23 between; i.e., 20 is a lamination structure. Coils 22/24 are magnetically coupled, constituting a passive transformer); and wherein attaching the magnetic assembly to the conductive support structure includes attaching the lamination structure to the conductive support structure (20 attached to 212).
As to Claim 19, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 17. Yoshio, as applied to claim 17, further teaches wherein the package structure includes a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side (Yoshio Fig 1, top and bottom edges of structure); wherein portions of the individual conductive leads extend outward from the package structure along a corresponding one of the first and second lateral sides (leads extend along top and bottom edges); and wherein the magnetic assembly is centered between the first and second lateral sides (L centered with respect to top and bottom edges).
As to Claim 20, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 17. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the conductive support structure includes:
a first conductive support member directly connected to a first group of the second set of the conductive leads, and spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure (bottom-most 212 directly connects to conductive support and is spaced apart from other conductive structures), and
wherein attaching the magnetic assembly to the conductive support structure includes attaching the lamination structure to the first and second conductive support members (20 attached to support member directly connected to bottom-most 212).
Though O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach a second conductive support member directly connected to a second group of the second set of the conductive leads, and spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure, such duplication of elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, without some reason such duplication would produce unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.04.VI.C)
As to Claim 22, O’Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21, further including:
directly connecting a second conductive die pad (below second die 210) to a third set of the conductive leads (210 directly connected to top right-side leads 212), and
attaching a second semiconductor die attached to the second conductive die pad (210 attached to pad below 210).
O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach the second conductive die pad spaced apart from the conductive support structure.
Yoshio, as applied to claim 15, teaches and rationalizes having the second conductive die pad being spaced from the conductive support structure, thereby teaching all limitations of claim 22.
As to Claim 23, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 22. O’Sullivan teaches the method further comprising:
connecting a first bond wire connected between the semiconductor die and a first conductive lead of the conductive leads (wire 204 connect to left-side lead);
connecting a second bond wire between the semiconductor die and the magnetic assembly (wire 220);
connecting a third bond wire between the second semiconductor die and a second conductive lead of the conductive leads (wire above 210 connects to right-side lead); and
connecting a fourth bond wire connected between the second semiconductor die and the magnetic assembly (wire 230 connects 210 to 20).
As to Claim 24, O’Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21, and further teaches:
directly connecting a second conductive support member to a second group of the second set of the conductive leads (connected to bottom-right lead 212); and
attaching the magnetic assembly to the first and second conductive support members (20 attached to those support members).
O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach the second conductive support member being spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure.
Yoshio, for the same reasons outlined in the claim 15 combination, teaches and rationalizes the second conductive support member being spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure, thereby teaching all limitations of claim 24.
As to Claim 25, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 24. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the magnetic assembly includes:
a lamination structure, including a patterned conductive feature that forms a part of a passive electronic component (20 comprises coils 22 and 24 with insulating layer 23 between; i.e., 20 is a lamination structure. Coils 22/24 are magnetically coupled, constituting a passive transformer),
a first core structure attached to a first side of the lamination structure, and a second core structure attached to a second side of the lamination structure (22 and 24, respectively); and
wherein the lamination structure is attached to the first and second conductive support members (20 attached to support members as outlined in claim 24 rejection).
As to Claim 26, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 24. Yoshio, as applied to claim 24, further teaches:
wherein the package structure includes a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side (Yoshio Fig 1, top and bottom edges);
wherein portions of the individual conductive leads extend outward from the package structure along a corresponding one of the first and second lateral sides (leads extend from those lateral edges); and
wherein the magnetic assembly is centered between the first and second lateral sides (L centered with respect to top and bottom edges).
As to Claim 27, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 22. Yoshio, as applied to claim 22 and as outlined in the claim 26 rejection above, further teaches all of:
wherein the package structure includes a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side;
wherein portions of the individual conductive leads extend outward from the package structure along a corresponding one of the first and second lateral sides; and
wherein the magnetic assembly is centered between the first and second lateral sides.
As to Claim 29, O’Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21. However, it does not explicitly teach the position of the magnetic assembly relative to a first and second lateral side.
Yoshio, as outlined in the claim 26 rejection above, teaches a method similar to that of O’Sullivan, wherein the package structure includes a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side;
wherein portions of the individual conductive leads extend outward from the package structure along a corresponding one of the first and second lateral sides; and
wherein the magnetic assembly is centered between the first and second lateral sides.
Thus, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches all limitations of claim 29.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Sullivan and Yoshio as applied to claim 17, and further in view of US 2015/0280785 (Brauchler et al).
As to Claim 18, the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 17. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the package structure includes a top side and an opposite bottom side (Fig 9, top and bottom of 170). However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the lamination structure is centered between the top and bottom sides.
Brauchler discloses a device similar to that made by the combination of O’Sullivan and Yoshio, wherein a laminated magnetic assembly is centered between top and bottom sides of the package structure (Brauchler Fig 2, 232+212 centered in 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method of making a structure taught by O'Sullivan and Yoshio with the vertically-centered magnetic assembly taught by Brauchler. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing.
Claim(s) 30-31, 33, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Sullivan and further in view of Brauchler.
As to Claim 30, O’Sullivan teaches the method of claim 21. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the package structure includes a top side and an opposite bottom side (Fig 9, top and bottom of 170). However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the lamination structure is centered between the top and bottom sides.
Brauchler discloses a device similar to that made by the combination of O’Sullivan, wherein a laminated magnetic assembly is centered between top and bottom sides of the package structure (Brauchler Fig 2, 232+212 centered in 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method of making a structure taught by O’Sullivan with the vertically-centered magnetic assembly taught by Brauchler. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing.
As to Claim 31, O’Sullivan teaches a method for fabricating an electronic device, the method comprising:
directly connecting a conductive die pad to a first set of conductive leads of a leadframe structure (portion below 200 connected to left-side leads);
attaching a semiconductor die to the conductive die pad (200 connected thereon);
directly connecting a conductive support structure to a second set of conductive leads (portion below 20 directly connected to right-side leads);
attaching a magnetic assembly including a lamination structure to the conductive support structure (20 attached thereon, where 20 comprises a lamination structure shown in Fig 1); and
enclosing with a molded package structure the conductive die pad, the conductive support structure, the semiconductor die, the magnetic assembly and portions of the conductive leads (package enclosed in mold encapsulant ¶0039), the molded package structure including a top side, and an opposite bottom side (top/bottom sides as shown in Fig 9).
O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach wherein the lamination structure is centered between the top and bottom sides.
Brauchler discloses a device similar to that made by the combination of O’Sullivan, wherein a laminated magnetic assembly is centered between top and bottom sides of the package structure (Brauchler Fig 2, 232+212 centered in 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method of making a structure taught by O’Sullivan with the vertically-centered magnetic assembly taught by Brauchler. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing.
As to Claim 33, the combination of O’Sullivan and Brauchler teaches the method of claim 31. Brauchler, as applied to claim 31, further teaches:
wherein the package structure includes a first lateral side and an opposite second lateral side;
wherein portions of the individual conductive leads extend outward from the package structure along a corresponding one of the first and second lateral sides; and
wherein the magnetic assembly is centered between the first and second lateral sides.
As to Claim 36, the combination of O’Sullivan and Brauchler teaches the method of claim 31. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the magnetic assembly includes:
a lamination structure with a patterned conductive feature that forms a part of a passive electronic component (20 comprises coils 22 and 24 with insulating layer 23 between; i.e., 20 is a lamination structure. Coils 22/24 are magnetically coupled, constituting a passive transformer);
a first core structure attached to a first side of the lamination structure (coil 22), and a second core structure attached to a second side of the lamination structure (coil 24); and
wherein the lamination structure is attached to the first and second conductive support members (all of 20 attached to conductive support members).
Claim(s) 32 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Sullivan and Brauchler as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Yoshio.
As to Claim 32, the combination of O’Sullivan and Brauchler teaches the method of claim 31. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the conductive support structure comprises:
a first conductive support member directly connected to a first group of the second set of the conductive leads (bottom-most 212 directly connects to conductive support), and
a second conductive support member directly connected to a second group of the second set of the conductive leads (though O’Sullivan does not explicitly teach a second conductive support member directly connected to a second group of the second set of the conductive leads, and spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure, such duplication of elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, without some reason such duplication would produce unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.04.VI.C)),
wherein the lamination structure is attached to the first and second conductive support members (20 connected to conductive support members); and
a molded package structure that encloses the conductive die pad, the conductive support structure, the semiconductor die, the magnetic assembly and portions of the conductive leads (assembly of Fig 10 embedded in a mold compound ¶0039), the molded package structure including a top side, and an opposite bottom side (top and bottom sides of package as shown in Fig 9).
Brauchler, as applied to claim 31, teaches wherein the lamination structure is centered between the top and bottom sides (Brauchler Fig 2, 232+212 centered in 200).
Their combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second conductive support members are spaced apart from all other conductive structures of the leadframe structure.
Yoshio, as discussed in the claim 15 rejection, teaches spacing the conductive support members apart from other conductive structures of the leadframe structure.
As to Claim 34, the combination of O’Sullivan and Brauchler teaches the method of claim 31. O’Sullivan further teaches wherein the leadframe structure further includes a second conductive die pad directly connected to a third set of the conductive leads (portion below 210 directly connected to right-side leads), and
wherein the device further includes a second semiconductor die attached to the second conductive die pad (210 attached thereon).
Yoshio, as applied to claim 31, teaches the die pad being spaced apart from the conductive support structure.
As to Claim 35, the combination of O’Sullivan, Brauchler, and Yoshio teaches the method of claim 34. O’Sullivan teaches the method further comprising:
connecting a first bond wire connected between the semiconductor die and a first conductive lead of the conductive leads (wire 204 connect to left-side lead);
connecting a second bond wire between the semiconductor die and the magnetic assembly (wire 220);
connecting a third bond wire between the second semiconductor die and a second conductive lead of the conductive leads (wire above 210 connects to right-side lead); and
connecting a fourth bond wire connected between the second semiconductor die and the magnetic assembly (wire 230 connects 210 to 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/CDM/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899