DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
RE: the objection to claim(s) 20, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendment have resolved the typographical issue in this claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 20 is withdrawn.
RE: the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments have been fully considered but are moot as further search and consideration prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 7-9 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.
Claim 7 includes “wherein a line connecting between inner edges of the pair of leads passes through the portion” which is indefinite as it is unclear how edges of leads can be inner edges compared to outer edges, and it is further unclear if “line” refers to a physical line (e.g., metal line) or a geometric (i.e., virtual) line. For the purposes of examination the “inner edges” will be interpreted as edges facing each other, and the “line” will be interpreted as a geometric (i.e., virtual) line.
Claim 8 includes “each of the plurality of tie bars including a second portion similar to the portion” and the term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5327008A (“Djennas”) in view of US6225685B1 (“Newman”).
RE: Claim 7, Djennas discloses A semiconductor device (device in FIGs. 4-5; FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of 40 incorporated into a semiconductor device 45, Col. 6, lines 33-35), comprising:
a lead frame (40 in FIG. 4) including:
a die pad (42);
a tie bar (16) having proximal and distal end portions, the proximal end portion is coupled to the die pad (FIG. 4 shows a proximal end of 16 coupled to 42), and the tie bar extends longitudinally from the proximal end portion towards a corner of the lead frame (FIG. 4 shows 16 extends longitudinally from its proximal end toward a corner of 40); and
an arrangement of leads (14) spaced apart from the die pad along at least two sides of the lead frame;
a semiconductor die (44, Col. 6, lines 15-20) on the die pad (42 is a mini flag, Col. 6, lines 12-16; a flag is a plate-like member which supports the die, Col. 1, lines 24-28); and
a molding material (28 in FIG. 5, Col. 5, lines 5-10) covering the semiconductor die and a portion the lead frame.
Djennas does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of FIGs. 4-5:
in which a portion of the tie bar that extends between a pair of leads closest to the tie bar, the portion has a width that is reduced relative to a width of the proximal end portion of the tie bar, wherein a line connecting between inner edges of the pair of leads passes through the portion.
However, in FIG. 3 Djennas discloses:
in which a portion (34, 35, 36, 37) of the tie bar that extends between a pair of adjacent leads (14) has a width that is reduced relative to a width of the proximal end portion of the tie bar (FIG. 3 shows alignment features 34, 35, 36, 37 have a width reduced relative to a width of the proximal end of 14 at dies 38, 39; see Col. 6, lines 1-11).
Djennas further discloses tie bars 32 do not have shoulders to aid in die alignment. However, other features can be incorporated into tie bars 32 to assist in die mounting. A few of the possible types of features suited for this are illustrated in FIG. 3 as alignment features 34, 35, 36, and 37. An alignment feature is included in each of tie bars 32 to represent various types of alignment features which might be implemented. However, it is important to note that any number of tie bars can incorporate any number or type of alignment feature, Col. 5, lines 65-68 and Col. 6, lines 1-11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce an alignment feature in each tie bar 16 as taught by Djennas in order to more accurately align the semiconductor die 44 on the die pad 42.
In the same field of endeavor, Newman discloses in FIG. 2:
in which a portion of a tie bar (2) that extends between a pair of leads (1 and 160; The lead frame comprises a plurality of lead pins 12, numbered 1 through 160, Col. 3, lines 5-10) closest to the tie bar, the portion has a width that is reduced relative to a width of the proximal end portion of the tie bar, wherein a line connecting between inner edges of the pair of leads passes through the portion (Annotated FIG. 2 below shows portion of tie bar has a width that is reduced relative to a width of the proximal end portion of the tie bar, wherein a line connecting between inner edges of the pair of leads passes through the portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
831
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2 of Newman
Newman discloses:
It was found that a reduction in the gap between the tie bars and lead pins significantly reduced and in many cases eliminated wire sweep, thereby significantly reducing or eliminating shorting due to crossed wires during resin molding, Col. 3, lines 10-15.
Newman further discloses in FIG. 2 and comprises a substantially square die-attach pad 20 with tie bars 21 extending from the four corners thereof which tie bars 21 are relatively wide to occupy more space at the corners between the lead pins, thereby reducing the gap R between the tie bars and lead pins, Col. 3, lines 26-32.
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 position of the reduced width portion in each tie bar 16, such that a line connecting between inner edges of the pair of leads passes through the reduced width portion as taught by Newman in order to significantly reduce or eliminate shorting as further taught by Newman, while still allowing use of the reduced width portion as an alignment feature.
RE: Claim 8, Djennas in view of Newman discloses The semiconductor device of claim 7, wherein the tie bar of the lead frame includes a plurality of tie bars (16 in FIG. 4) having proximal end portions coupled to the die pad (FIG. 4 shows each 16 has a proximal end coupled to 42), each of the plurality of tie bars including a second portion similar to the portion (FIG. 2 Newman shows each tie bar 21 having the same portion having a reduced width; Accordingly; As modified, each tie bar 16 would have the same alignment feature).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djennas in view of Newman as applied to claim 7, further in view of US 20040262724 A1 (“Hsu”).
RE: Claim 9, Djennas in view of Newman does not explicitly disclose The semiconductor device of claim 7 including a quad flat no lead package.
However, Djennas discloses The particular lead frame illustrated in FIG. 1 is for use in a QFP (quad flat pack) semiconductor package, Col. 3, lines 35-40.
Djennas further discloses FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of lead frame 40 incorporated into a semiconductor device 45 in accordance with the present invention. Other elements of device 45 are similar to or are the same as other elements discussed in reference to previous embodiments and are thus labeled with the same reference numerals, Col. 6 lines 33-35.
Djennas further discloses the present invention is not limited by any type of external lead configuration (e.g. J-lead, gull-wing, or through-hole) of package configuration (e.g. QFP, PDIP, etc.), Col. 8, lines 60-65.
In the same field of endeavor, Hsu discloses According to the type of leads in the lead frame, a quad flat package (QFP) can be divided into quad flat package with I-type leads (QFI), quad flat package with J-type leads (QFJ) and quad flat package no-lead (QFN). Because the outer end of the leads of the lead frame are uniformly cut along the four edges of a chip package, this type of package is also referred to as a quad flat no-lead chip package. Since a quad flat package has a shorter average transmission trace and a faster signal transmission speed, it is one of the most popular low-pin-count packages for high frequency (for example, radio frequency bandwidth) transmission.
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 package 45 in FIG. 5 to be a quad flat no lead package as taught by Hsu in order to support faster signal transmission speeds.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014036129A (“Ishibashi”) in view of CN109119395A (“Ookawachi”).
RE: Claim 10, Ishibashi discloses An apparatus (10 in FIGs. 1, 2(a)-2(c), [0015]) comprising:
a lead frame sheet (10) including:
a plurality of lead frames (10 is a lead frame; lead frame includes a plurality of unit lead frames, [0009]; FIG. 1 shows 10 includes a plurality of unit lead frames), a pair of adjacent lead frames including an arrangement of opposing leads (14, [0016]) along adjacent edges thereof, in which the opposing leads are spaced apart from and coupled to each other by a dam bar (portion of 11, 12 excluding 13a, 13b shown in FIGs. 2(a)-2(c); 11 is a connecting bar, [0015]; a connecting bar is referred to as a dam bar, [0002]; FIG.2(c) is an expanded sectional view of the connecting bar 11 (DD cross section in FIG. 2(a), [0015]; Accordingly, 12 shown in FIG. 2(c) is considered part of 11), and the dam bar extends longitudinally along the adjacent edges of the adjacent lead frames (FIG. 1 shows 11 extends longitudinally along the adjacent edges of adjacent unit lead frames in 10); and
a reinforcement feature (13, 13b in FIGs. 2(a), 2(c); 13b is a second strength retaining portion formed across the adjacent leads 14 via the connecting bar, [0017]; strength holding portion 13 is continuously formed on the connecting bar 11, [0017]; 13 includes first and second strength retaining portions 13a and 13b, [0017]) extending across the dam bar, in which the leads and the reinforcement feature have a thickness, in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the sheet, which is greater than a thickness of the dam bar (FIG. 2(b) shows 14, 13a has vertical thickness larger than vertical thickness of 12; FIG. 2(c) shows 13b has a vertical thickness larger than that of 12; these vertical thicknesses are in a direction orthogonal to top surface of 14).
Ishibashi does not explicitly disclose:
the reinforcement feature extends under the dam bar.
In the same field of endeavor, Ookawachi discloses FIG. 1(b):
a reinforcement feature (3) extends under a dam bar (2 or longitudinal part of 2 that excludes 3; Annotated FIG. 1(b) below shows a distinct reinforcement feature 3 connecting leads 1, where the reinforcement feature extends under the longitudinal part of the dam 2, pg. 9, lines 5-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 1(b) in Ookawachi
Ookawachi further discloses:
The merged first portion 2a is formed with a transverse portion 3 that traverses the dam 2, pg. 9, lines 9-10.
Ookawachi further discloses:
As a result, the working tensile stress is concentrated on the cut portion, the compressive stress is reduced, and the lead wire after the cutting is hard to be deformed, pg. 9 lines 35-37.
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 reinforcement feature 13b to extend under the dam bar 11 as taught by Ookawachi in order to prevent deformation of the leads as further taught by Ookawachi.
RE: Claim 11, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the reinforcement feature includes a bridge feature (Ishibashi 13b as modified by Ookawachi) extending across the dam bar and coupled between at least one pair of the opposing leads along the adjacent edges (FIG. 2(a) shows 13b extending across the dam bar 11,12 and coupled between at least one pair of the opposing leads 14 along the adjacent edges of the unit lead frames).
RE: Claim 12, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the reinforcement feature includes an arrangement of bridge features (Ishibashi 13b as modified by Ookawachi), in which each of the bridge features extend across the dam bar and are coupled between a respective pair of the opposing leads (FIG. 2(a) shows an arrangement of 13(b) in which each of the bridge features 13(b) extend across the dam bar 11,12 and are coupled between a respective pair of the opposing leads 14).
RE: Claim 13, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 12, wherein each of the opposing leads along the adjacent edges has sides extending longitudinally between proximal and distal ends thereof (Ishibashi FIG. 2(a) shows each of the opposing leads 14 has sides extending longitudinally between proximal and distal ends thereof; a distal end of 14 includes either a left end or right end closer to 13 in FIG. 2(a), a proximal end of 14 includes either a left end or right end further from 13 relative to its distal end; the sides of 14 are top and bottom sides of 14 in FIG. 2(a) which extend longitudinally between the proximal and distal ends/left and right ends of 14), and each of the bridge features is coupled to the distal ends of the respective pair of the opposing leads (FIG. 2(a) shows each of the bridge features 13b is coupled to the distal ends of the respective pair of the opposing leads 14).
RE: Claim 14, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein a distance between the sides of each of the opposing leads defines a lead width (Ishibashi FIG. 2(a) shows a distance between top and bottom sides of 14 defines a lead width), and each of the bridge features has a width between sides thereof that is less than the lead width of the respective pair of opposing leads between which each respective bridge feature extends (FIG. 2(a) shows a vertical width of 13b is less than the lead width of the respective pair of opposing leads 14 between which each respective bridge feature 13b extends).
RE: Claim 15, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the width of each bridge feature is less than or equal to about one-half the lead width of the respective opposing leads between which the respective bridge feature extends (Ishibashi FIG. 2(a) shows the width of each bridge feature 13b is less than or equal to about one-half the lead width of the respective opposing leads 14 between which the respective bridge feature 13b extends).
RE: Claim 16, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the reinforcement feature comprises a ribbon (Ishibashi 13a; 13a is continuously formed on the connecting bar 11, [0017]) extending longitudinally along a central portion of the dam bar.
RE: Claim 17, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the ribbon has side edges spaced apart from distal ends of the opposing leads (Ishibashi FIG. 2(a) shows 13a has side edges spaced apart from distal ends of opposing 14).
RE: Claim 18, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the reinforcement feature also includes an arrangement of bridge features (Ishibashi FIG. 2(a) shows 13 includes an arrangement of 13b), each of the bridge features extending across the dam bar and the ribbon between a respective pair of the opposing leads (FIG. 2(a) shows 13b extending across the dam bar 12 and the ribbon 13a between a respective pair of the opposing leads 14).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi as applied to claim 10 in view of Djennas.
RE: Claim 19, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi discloses The apparatus claim 10, wherein a particular lead frame of the sheet includes a tie bar having proximal and distal end portions (Annotated FIG. 1 of Ishibashi below shows 10 includes a tie bar having proximal and distal end portions), the tie bar extending longitudinally from the proximal end portion, which is located inwardly from edges of the particular lead frame, towards a corner of the particular lead frame (Annotated FIG. 1 shows the tie bar extending longitudinally from the proximal end portion, which is located inwardly from edges of the particular lead frame, towards a corner of the particular lead frame).
Ishibashi does not explicitly disclose:
in which a portion of the tie bar located between a pair of the leads of the particular lead frame has a reduced width relative to a width of the proximal end portion.
However, Ishibashi discloses 15 is a semiconductor element mounting portion and 16 is a semiconductor element, [0021].
FIG. 3 shows the semiconductor element 16 mounted on the semiconductor element mounting portion 15.
In the same field of endeavor, Djennas discloses in FIG. 3:
in which a portion (34, 35, 36, 37) of the tie bar (32) located between a pair of the leads (14, Col. 4 lines 40-45) of a particular lead frame (30, Col. 5, lines 50-55) has a reduced width relative to a width of the proximal end portion (FIG. 3 shows alignment features 34, 35, 36, 37 have a width reduced relative to a width of the proximal end of 14 at dies 38, 39; see Col. 6, lines 1-11).
Djennas further discloses tie bars 32 do not have shoulders to aid in die alignment. However, other features can be incorporated into tie bars 32 to assist in die mounting. A few of the possible types of features suited for this are illustrated in FIG. 3 as alignment features 34, 35, 36, and 37. An alignment feature is included in each of tie bars 32 to represent various types of alignment features which might be implemented. However, it is important to note that any number of tie bars can incorporate any number or type of alignment feature, Col. 5, lines 65-68 and Col. 6, lines 1-11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce an alignment feature in each tie bar as taught by Djennas in order to more accurately align the semiconductor element 16 on the die pad 15.
PNG
media_image3.png
356
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Annotated FIG. 1 of Ishibashi)
RE: Claim 20, Ishibashi in view of Ookawachi, Djennas discloses The apparatus claim 19, wherein the proximal end portion of the tie bar is coupled to a die pad (From: Ishibashi: 15, [0021]) at a central portion of the particular lead frame (Annotated FIG. 1 of Ishibashi shows the proximal end portion of the tie bar is coupled to a die pad 15 at a central portion of the particular lead frame), and distal end portion is coupled to at least one respective dam bar near a corner of the particular lead frame (Annotated FIG. 1 above shows the distal end portion is coupled to at least one respective dam bar 11 near a corner of the particular lead frame).
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 MICHAEL ANGUIANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/MICHAEL ANGUIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights