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 .
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (“Ozaki” US 2007/0132112) and Mino et al. (“Mino” US 2010/0065960).
Regarding claim 1, Ozaki discloses:
A method of producing a semiconductor package (Figure 6), the method comprising:
providing a molded plate (resin sheet 3) that is formed of a first mold compound (para. [0030]);
providing a lead frame assembly (1, 5, Figure 4A) that comprises a lead frame (1) and a semiconductor die (5) mounted on a die pad (1a) of the lead frame (1, para. [0031], see Figure 4A);
arranging the lead frame assembly (1, 5) and the molded plate (3) within a molding chamber (24, see Figure 4E) of a molding tool (21, 22) such that the molded plate (3) is interposed between the die pad (1a) and an interior surface of the molding chamber (see Figure 4E);
and performing a molding process (para. [0041]-[0045]) that fills the molding chamber (24) with a second mold compound (2) that encapsulates the semiconductor die (5, see Figures 4F and 4G).
Ozaki does not explicitly disclose that during the molding process the molded plate partially liquifies such that an edge side of the die pad becomes embedded within the first mold compound.
However, Mino discloses a molding process (Figures 3A-3C, 4A-4B) during which the molded plate (42) partially liquifies (Figure 3C, para. [0078]) such that an edge side of the die pad (12) becomes embedded within the first mold compound (material of 42, see Figure 3C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Mino into the teachings of Ozaki to include the molding step as taught by Mino above, for the purpose of further decreasing the thickness of the molded plate in order to improve heat dissipation (see Mino, para. [0064] which discloses that the thickness T1, Figure 1C, is very thin in order to decrease thermal resistance, and para. [0079] discloses that the thickness T3 of molded plate 42 in Figure 3C is the same as T1, and thus would improve the thermal dissipation of the device in Figures 3A-3C and 4A-4B for the same reason).
Regarding claim 2, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the molding process forms an electrically insulating package body (see Figure 6) comprising the molded plate (3) and a region of the second mold compound (2, see modified Figure 6), wherein the electrically insulating package body (Figure 6) comprises a mounting surface (see modified Figure 6) that is spaced apart from a rear side of the die pad (1a), and wherein the molded plate (3) forms a direct path of the first mold compound (material of resin sheet 3) between the rear side of the die pad (1a) and the mounting surface (see modified Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the mounting surface (see modified Figure 6) comprises an outer surface of the molded plate (3) that is coplanar with a surface of the region of the second mold compound (2, see modified Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mold compound (material of molded plate 3, para. [0030], epoxy resin containing a filler) has a different composition as the second mold compound (2, second mold compound 2 is made of an epoxy resin without a filler, and thus has a different composition than the first mold compound).
Regarding claim 5, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first mold compound (3) has a higher thermal conductivity than the second mold compound (2, para. [0030] discloses that the molded plate 3 has a higher thermal conductivity than the second molding compound 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first mold compound (material of 3) comprises at least one filler particle (para. [0030]) that is not present in the second mold compound (the second mold compound 2 comprises epoxy resin and is not disclosed as comprising any filler).
Regarding claim 8, Ozaki discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one filler particle that is not present in the second mold compound (2) comprises any one or more of:
SiO2;
Al2O3;
AIN; and
BN.
The resin sheet/molded plate 3 contains a filler of one material selected from the group disclosed by Ozaki in para. [0030], and since the second mold compound 2 is disclosed as comprising epoxy resin, not with filler, the at least one filler particle is not present in the second mold compound.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki and Mino as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (“Liu” Enhanced thermomechanical and dielectric properties of the epoxy composites by incorporating Si02 and BaTi03 fillers).
Regarding claim 6, Ozaki does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constants of the first and second mold compounds 3, and 2.
However, as Applicant’s disclosure is enabling for the claims, the dielectric constant of Applicant’s first mold compound is greater than the dielectric constant of Applicant’s second mold compound. Ozaki’s first and second mold compounds (3,2, respectively) are comprised of the same materials as disclosed by Applicant (epoxy resin with filler, and epoxy resin, respectively, para. [0030]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Ozaki’s first mold compound 3 has a greater dielectric constant than the second mold compound 2.
To support this assertion, Liu discloses an epoxy composite material with SiO2 (and BaTiO3) filler, which significantly increases the dielectric constant (see Liu, abstract). Considering the findings presented by Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that Ozaki’s first mold compound (3) comprised of an epoxy resin with SiO2 filler has a greater dielectric constant than the second mold compound (2) that does not include a SiO2 filler.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki and Mino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada et al. (“Tada” US 2018/0269140).
Regarding claim 10, Ozaki does not explicitly disclose a thickness for the molded plate.
Tada discloses a thickness of the molded plate (insulating sheet 3) is between 100 µm and 400 µm (see para. [0067], the thickness range of insulating sheet 3 is between 50 µm and 500 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Tada into the teachings of Ozaki to include a thickness of the molding plate between 100 µm and 400 µm for the purpose of implementing a preferrable thickness for accommodating the maximum particle size of the filler used (Tada, para. [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899