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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered and further examination has proceeded with applicant’s amended claims in regards to previous rejection. Claims 1 and 2 have been rejected after further examination.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant states the material would be the same between the less-rough (122) and roughened (121) area in Hayashi which is seen by the examiner to be not persuasive as Hayashi does disclose a difference in material to be copper and copper oxide [¶¶0055-0056]. Ishibashi further in view of Hayashi teaches the corrugated surface (rough area) and bending of the flattened portion [Fig. 3B, ¶0061] as seen in Hayashi which is applied to Ishibashi (description taught below). The flattening process as taught by Hayashi is seen affecting the support bar [Fig. 3B, ¶0061]. The bending of the flatten portion is seen by Figure 3B and ¶0062.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi (JP 2017147332) in further view of Hayashi (US 20220208664A1) and Wang (US 20210193590A1) .
Regarding Claim 1, Ishibashi teaches a lead frame [100] comprising:
A die pad [10];
A lead [12] arranged at a periphery of the die pad [10]; and
A support bar [14] supporting the die pad [10],
Wherein the support bar [14] has, at one principal surface thereof, a covered portion covered with needle-like copper oxide [Fig. 7, ¶0038, ¶0040, and ¶0045],
The exposed portion is formed at a bent portion of the support bar inclined with respect to the lead as viewed laterally [¶0038, inclined portions 23 and 25 may either be smooth or rough].
Ishibashi doesn’t teach the exposed portion has a corrugated surface that is copper, copper alloy, or a substance different from the needle-like copper oxide.
In Hayashi, the lead frame has a roughened area [121] and a less-rough area [122] which is flattened [¶0061].
In Hayashi, the lead frame (rough area) may include copper, copper alloy or a substance different from the needle-like copper oxide [¶0050, 0055, and 0056].
In addition, Wang teaches that the base metal of leadframe [108] may include copper, copper alloys, aluminum, aluminum alloys, iron-nickel alloys, or nickel-cobalt ferrous alloys [¶0050].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use of copper, copper alloy, or a substance different from the needle-like copper oxide as taught by Hayashi and Wang in Ishibashi to have a difference in material between the exposed and covered areas of the lead frame as required by the claim. The use of copper oxide is known to help with adhesion and to flatten the oxide is taught by Ishibashi to create a “corrugated surface” in the exposed region as required by the claim. Removing the oxide by flattening it instead of using a mask as taught by Ishibashi is a known alternative method resulting in the same device.
Regarding claim 2, Ishibashi further in view of Hayashi and Wang discloses the lead frame according to claim 1, wherein the exposed portion is formed at a flat portion of the support adjacent to the bent portion on an outside thereof [Fig. 3B, ¶0038, ¶0040, and ¶0043, paragraphs demonstrate the bending along the flat portion and an exposed (rough) portion adjacent to the bent portion].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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.
/NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893