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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 3, 6, 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention / species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the cited references disclose or teach the features in the independent claims, as amended.
In response, there is no support in the specification for the amended range as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support in the specification for the amendment to the independent claims: “an edge of the die(s) and an edge of the die pad(s) are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (um) and less than 300 micrometers (µm).” Instead, paragraphs [0021] (and [0027]) of the published application describes: “the die 112 is sized such that there is at least about a 200 micrometer (μm) distance between the edges 116 of the die 112 and the edges 124 of the die pad 108.” The terminology “at least about” does not set a closed range of 200 micrometer (μm) - 300 micrometer (μm).
The other claims are rejected as being dependent on one of claims 1 and 7.
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 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 18-24 is/are 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “an edge of the die(s) and an edge of the die pad(s) are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (µm) and less than 300 micrometers (µm), but neither edge is specified. The die(s) and the die pad(s) each have multiple edges. But, the claims do not explain which edges are measured; or whether: nearest edges, opposing edges, parallel edges, average spacing, minimum spacing, or lateral spacing, are intended. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed distance limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty even though Applicant points to paragraph [0037] of the specification as support for the amended claim language.
The other claims are rejected as being dependent on one of claims 1 and 7.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1, 4, 5, 18 is/are, to the extent taught and understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0162269 (Lo) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0044850 (Lin).
Lo discloses (Fig. 5)
1. (Currently Amended) An integrated circuit (IC) package comprising:
an interconnect comprises:
a connecting tie bar 206;
a die pad 204;
a die 302 mounted on the die pad 204 of the interconnect; and
a wire bond 502 coupled to the die 302 and the connecting tie bar 206 to provide a current path between the die 302 and the connecting tie bar 206 ([0029]).
Lo fails to disclose
wherein an edge of the die and an edge of the die pad are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (um) and less than 300 micrometers (µm).
Lin teaches (Fig. 1B)
An IC package comprising:
wherein an edge of the die 300 and an edge of the die pad 220 are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (µm) and less than 300 micrometers (µm) ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a separation between the die pad and the die of a desired distance in Lo. The motivation would be routine optimization as taught by Lin. When a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed in the prior art, there is a presumption of obviousness. Because the 300 endpoint is common to both, the ranges are considered to touch or overlap. If the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (e.g., operating at or above 300), discovering the optimal or workable range (e.g., slightly lower at 200–300) is considered "routine experimentation" See MPEP 2144.05.
Lin teaches
4. (Currently Amended) The IC package of claim 1, wherein an edge of the die and an edge of the die pad are separated by about 200 micrometers (µm).
Lo discloses
5. The IC package of claim 1, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node 222.
Lo discloses
18. (New) The IC package of Claim 4, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node 222.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Lin and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0126384 (Meng).
Lo discloses
7. A strip of integrated circuit (IC) packages comprising:
an interconnect comprising:
connecting tie bars 206;
die pad 204;
a die 302 mounted on the die pad 204 of the interconnect; and
wire bonds 502 coupled to the die 302 and the connecting tie bars 206 to provide a current path between the die 302 and the tie bars 206 ([0029]).
Lo fails to disclose
a strip of interconnects comprising:
die pads; and
dies, wherein an edge of the dies and an edge of the die pads are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (um) and less than 300 micrometers (µm).
Lin teaches (Fig. 1B)
An IC package comprising:
wherein an edge of the die 300 and an edge of the die pad 220 are separated by a distance of at least 200 micrometers (µm) and less than 300 micrometers (µm) ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a separation between the die pad and the die of a desired distance in Lo. The motivation would be routine optimization as taught by Lin. When a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed in the prior art, there is a presumption of obviousness. Because the 300 endpoint is common to both, the ranges are considered to touch or overlap. If the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (e.g., operating at or above 300), discovering the optimal or workable range (e.g., slightly lower at 200–300) is considered "routine experimentation" See MPEP 2144.05.
Meng teaches (Fig. 4)
An IC package comprising:
a strip of interconnects 200 comprising:
die pads 120; and
dies 110.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of interconnects in the modified device of Lo. The motivation would be mere duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04.
Meng teaches
9. The strip of IC packages of claim 7, wherein a given IC package of the strip of IC packages includes two or more wire bonds 145A that couple a respective die 110 of the IC package to a respective connecting tie bar 125 of the strip of interconnects.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple two or more wire bonds between the tie bar and the die in Lo. The motivation would be based on routine engineering design considerations as taught by Meng ([0016]-[0017). See MPEP 2144.04.
Lin teaches ([0037])
10. The strip of IC packages of claim 7, wherein a given IC package of the strip of IC packages has a distance between an edge of a respective die pad 220 and an edge of a respective die 300 of about 200 micrometers (µm) or more.
Lo discloses
11. The strip of IC packages of claim 7, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node 222.
Lin teaches ([0037])
21. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 9, wherein a given IC package of the strip of IC packages has a distance between an edge of a respective die pad 220 and an edge of a respective die 300 of about 200 micrometers (µm).
Lo discloses
23. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 9, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node 222.
Lo discloses
24. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 10, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node222 .
Claim(s) 8, 19, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Lin and Meng as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0091448 (Warren).
The combination of references fails to teach
8. The strip of IC packages of claim 7, wherein the connecting tie bars are galvanically isolated from the die pads.
Warren teaches (Fig. 1B)
An IC package comprising:
wherein the connecting tie bars 130 and 131 are galvanically isolated from the die pad 110.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide isolation between the tie bars and the die pads in the modified device of Lo. The motivation would be to allow faster, more efficient and lower cost quality control testing of devices on the interconnect as taught by Warren ([0026]-[0028]).
Meng teaches
19. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 8, wherein a given IC package of the strip of IC packages includes two or more wire bonds 145A that couple a respective die 110 of the IC package to a respective connecting tie bar 125 of the strip of interconnects.
Lin teaches ([0037])
20. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 8, wherein a given IC package of the strip of IC packages has a distance between an edge of a respective die pad 220 and an edge of a respective die 300 of about 200 micrometers (µm).
Lo discloses
22. (New) The strip of IC packages of claim 8, wherein the tie bars 206 are coupled to an electrically neutral node 222.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,580,159 (Fusaro), 6,097,098 (Ball), JP Publication No. 2004349397 (Ueda) teach an IC package including a wire bond coupled to a tie bar.
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 TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights