Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/070,530

LEADFRAME BASED POWER MODULE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 29, 2022
Examiner
MOJADDEDI, OMAR F
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
448 granted / 500 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
538
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 500 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-8 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 08/11/2025 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner. This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-8 are presented for examination. 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. 2. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “a leadframe having pins, the pins having a proximate end and a distal end; a die attached to the proximate end of the pins of the leadframe; a mold compound encapsulating the die; and an electronic component attached to the leadframe, wherein the distal end of at least two of the pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a first direction and the distal end of remaining pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction” (Claim 1; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following: i) The claim is indefinite because “a leadframe having pins, the pins having a proximate end and a distal end; a die attached to the proximate end of the pins of the leadframe; a mold compound encapsulating the die; and an electronic component attached to the leadframe, wherein the distal end of at least two of the pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a first direction and the distal end of remaining pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction” (Claim 1) lacks clarity and the language of the limitations add great confusion. (Claim 1, Line 2) “the pins having a proximate end and a distal end” It is not clear whether all the pins have a proximate end and a distal end (i.e. that all the pins together share or have one proximate end and one distal end), or that each pin from the set of pins have a proximate end and a distal end (i.e. each pin has its own proximate end and its own distal end) (Claim 1, Line 3) “a die attached to the proximate end of the pins of the leadframe” This limitation seems to clarify that all of the pins have only one proximate end (i.e. that all of the pins together have or share one proximate end). (Claim 1, Lines 2-3) “the pins having a proximate end and a distal end; a die attached to the proximate end of the pins of the leadframe” A reading of lines 2-3 suggests that the limitation “the pins having a proximate end and a distal end” means the pins have a proximate end and a distal end (i.e. that all the pins together share or have one proximate end and one distal end) as the die is attached to the proximate end of the pins. Thus, language of the lines 2-3 in combination point to the meaning that the pins have a proximate end and a distal end (Claim 1, Lines 6-9) “wherein the distal end of at least two of the pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a first direction and the distal end of remaining pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction” Limitations in lines 6-9 add confusion once again as they suggest the pins have different or multiple distal ends. There is a distal end of at least two of the pins in a first direction, and there is another distal end of remaining pins in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction. The limitation in lines 6-9 clearly delineate multiple distal ends. However, the limitation in line 2 states “the pins having a proximate end and a distal end”. Thus, it is not clear whether the pins all together share or have one proximate end and one distal end, or whether each pin from the set of pins has its own proximate end and its own distal end, or whether the pins have or share one proximate end and multiple distal ends. The language in line 2 states “a distal end” but the language in lines 6-9 speak of multiple distal ends in different directions. Therefore, the limitations of “a leadframe having pins, the pins having a proximate end and a distal end; a die attached to the proximate end of the pins of the leadframe; a mold compound encapsulating the die; and an electronic component attached to the leadframe, wherein the distal end of at least two of the pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a first direction and the distal end of remaining pins are substantially perpendicular to the proximate end of the pins in a second direction that is opposite that of the first direction” (Claim 1) are indefinite, unclear, and add great confusion. 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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention. As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Regarding Claim 2-8, it is rejected under 112(b) because of its dependency status from claim 1. Relevant Prior Art The following is relevant Prior Art that is not cited in the rejection. Hatakeyama et al. (US 5508565 A) Yaguchi et al. (US 5299092 A) Masuda et al. (US 6252299 B1) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. 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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602900
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-ENABLED PREPARATION END-POINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598760
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593683
STRUCTURE WITH INDUCTOR EMBEDDED IN BONDED SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATES AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588508
PACKAGE COMPRISING A LID STRUCTURE WITH A COMPARTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588225
IC INCLUDING CAPACITOR HAVING SEGMENTED BOTTOM PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 500 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month