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 § 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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Miyaki et al. (US Pat. #6,444,905).
Regarding claim 1, Miyaki teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a conductive die bond [fig. 2, die bond];
a semiconductor element electrically connected to the die bond [fig. 2, 1];
a sealing resin being an insulating resin sealing the semiconductor element therein [fig. 2, 10, column 4, lines 42-53 teach insulating resin]; and
a plurality of electrode terminals electrically connected to the die bond and protruding from the sealing resin each including a root portion being a root protruding from the sealing resin, a tip portion being a tip and portion extending from the root portion, and a middle portion provided between the tip portion and the root portion [fig. 9, electrode terminals 5b protruding from 10 connected to the die bond and device, root portion 5b1, middle portion 5b2 and 5b4, tip portion 5b3],
wherein the plurality of electrode terminals are aligned along a first direction and protrude from the sealing resin in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction [fig. 2 and 9, the terminals are aligned along a first direction and extend in a second orthogonal direction], and
the middle portion includes a first middle portion having a width wider than those of the root portion and the tip portion in the first direction, and a second middle portion having a width wider than that of the root portion in the first direction, and a width narrower than that of the first middle portion in the first direction [fig. 9, 5b4 is a first middle portion having a width wider than 5b1 and 5b3, 5b2 is a second middle portion with a width wider than 5b1 and narrower 5b4], and having a bent portion bent toward in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction [fig. 9, 5b4 and 5b2 are in a bent region]
Regarding claim 16, Miyaki discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the electrode terminal has the first middle portion at least one of between the second middle portion and the root portion or between the second middle portion and the tip portion [fig. 9, 5b4 is between 5b2 and 5b1].
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ichikawa et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0303295).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a conductive die bond [paragraph [0039] teaches a semiconductor bonded to a lead frame which would be a die bond];
a semiconductor element electrically connected to the die bond [paragraph [0039] teaches a semiconductor bonded to a lead frame];
a sealing resin being an insulating resin sealing the semiconductor element therein [fig. 11, package 1, paragraph [0039] teaches resin]; and
a plurality of electrode terminals electrically connected to the die bond and protruding from the sealing resin each including a root portion being a root protruding from the sealing resin, a tip portion being a tip and portion extending from the root portion, and a middle portion provided between the tip portion and the root portion [fig. 12 and 13, electrodes protruding from package 1, root portion between 4 and 1, middle portion 4, tip portion 3],
wherein the plurality of electrode terminals are aligned along a first direction and protrude from the sealing resin in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction [fig. 12 and 13, the terminals are aligned along a first direction and extend in a second orthogonal direction], and
the middle portion includes a first middle portion having a width wider than those of the root portion and the tip portion in the first direction, and a second middle portion having a width wider than that of the root portion in the first direction, and a width narrower than that of the first middle portion in the first direction [fig. 13, region 4 is the middle portion, first middle portion 4 that’s touching element 3 wider than both root and tip, second middle portion of 4 below the first portion, closer to the root, wider than the root but narrower than the first middle portion ], and having a bent portion bent toward in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction [fig. 12, 4 bends the electrode terminals in a third direction].
Regarding claim 16, Ichikawa discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the electrode terminal has the first middle portion at least one of between the second middle portion and the root portion or between the second middle portion and the tip portion [fig. 12 and 13, the first middle portion is between the second middle portion and the tip].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Miyaki does not teach the intermediate part 5B2 having a bent portion as recited in claim 1, and instead teaches the bent portion is between the root portion 5B1 and the tie bar separating 5B4. However, this is not persuasive as the claims only require the bent portion be part of the middle portion and not specifically part of the second middle portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
806
987
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the marked up fig. 9 of Miyaki above, the middle portion can include a region prior to the bend, while still allowing for a first middle portion 5B4 and second middle portion 5B2. The middle portion having a bent portion toward a third direction orthogonal to the first and second direction. Additionally, claim 2 further defines the bent portion as being located in the second middle portion which indicates the previous claim is open to broader interpretation.
Applicant also argues that in Ichikawa the second middle portion 4, closer to the root, does not have a bent portion. However, this is also not persuasive as the claims do not require it. The claims only require the bent portion be part of the middle portion and not specifically part of the second middle portion.
As shown in figs. 12 and 13 of Ichikawa, the middle portion encompasses a larger region and includes the first and second middle portions. The claim language only requires a bend located in the middle portion and not specifically in the second middle portion, the bend is part of the first middle element 4. Additionally, claim 2 further defines the bent portion as being located in the second middle portion which indicates the previous claim is open to broader interpretation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JOHN M PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-8794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JOHN M PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2899