DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 and 12/30/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 1, from which claim 12 depends requires the limitation of “…wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity…”, which is drawn to Fig. 1; however, Fig. 1 does not have the claimed “dimple” of claim 12. A “dimple” is disclosed in Fig. 4; however, Fig. 4 does not have the feature of “…wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity…”. That is, Applicant does not have support for the combination of limitations of “…wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity…” and “…wherein the cavity comprises a dimple-shaped cavity surface…”.
The Examiner suggests cancellation of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera-Marty (US Pub. 2019/0148270) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2017/0256509) and Gong et al. (US Pub. 2011/0244629).
Regarding independent claim 8, Rivera-Marty teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 21-29; para. 0051-0061), comprising:
a conductive structure (711, 712) comprising a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 28, 29; para. 0052-0053);
a dielectric structure (736; para. 0054) adjacent to the first side of the conductive structure, wherein the dielectric structure comprises a protrusion (Fig. 29; para. 0061) and the conductive structure comprises a pad (714) bounded by the protrusion and a lead (120) adjacent to the dielectric structure (Fig. 29; para. 0058, 0061);
a cavity in the lead adjacent to the dielectric structure (Fig. 28); and
a plating (26) on the conductive structure to cover the lead, wherein the plating covers a portion of the lead in the cavity to provide a plated cavity, wherein the plated cavity defines a wettable flank of the lead (Fig. 28; para. 0058);
wherein a surface of the lead is depressed relative to an exterior surface of the dielectric structure (Fig. 28);
wherein the plating structure comprises a metallic coating (para. 0041).
Rivera-Marty teaches wherein a bottommost surface of the lead is flush relative to an exterior surface of the dielectric structure; as opposed to depressed, as claimed. Rivera-Marty teaches wherein an exterior surface of the plating is not coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure; as opposed to coplanar, as claimed.
Lee teaches a device (Fig. 9) wherein a bottommost surface of the lead (204) is depressed relative to an exterior surface (203) of the dielectric structure (202); wherein an exterior surface of the plating (608) is coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure for the purpose of roughening/de-burring (para. 0044-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bottommost surface of the lead Rivera-Marty such that it was depressed relative to an exterior surface of the dielectric structure wherein an exterior surface of plating layer is coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure as taught by Lee for the same advantage of roughening/de-burring the leads.
Rivera-Marty only shows a cross-section view of the semiconductor device and is therefore silent with respect to wherein the cavity is bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure, and wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity.
Gong teaches a similar device (Fig. 7) wherein the cavity is bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure (202), and wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the cavity of Rivera-Marty be bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity as taught by Gong for the purpose of providing isolation between neighboring leads/wettable flanks.
Re claim 9, Rivera-Marty teaches an electronic device (16) attached to the conductive structure, wherein the electronic device is electrically coupled with the pad via an internal interconnect (31); and
a molding compound (36) covering the electronic device, wherein the molding compound contacts a side surface of the electronic device, and wherein the protrusion of the dielectric structure extends into the molding compound (Figs. 28, 29).
Re claim 10, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein: the protrusion protrudes higher than a top surface of the pad (Fig. 29); and
a bottom portion of the internal interconnect is bounded by the protrusion (Fig. 28, 29).
Re claim 11, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein the cavity comprises a first cavity surface perpendicular to a second cavity surface (Fig. 28).
Re claim 22, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein the metallic coating comprises at least one of gold, silver, palladium, or tin (para. 0041).
Claim(s) 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera-Marty (US Pub. 2019/0148270) in view of Gong et al. (US Pub. 2011/0244629).
Regarding independent claim 23, Rivera-Marty teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 21-29; para. 0051-0061), comprising:
a conductive structure (711, 712) comprising a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 28, 29; para. 0052-0053);
a dielectric structure (736; para. 0054) adjacent to the first side of the conductive structure, wherein the dielectric structure comprises a protrusion (Fig. 29; para. 0061) and the conductive structure comprises a pad (714) bounded by the protrusion and a lead (120) adjacent to the dielectric structure (Fig. 29; para. 0058, 0061);
a cavity in the lead adjacent to the dielectric structure (Fig. 28); and
a plating (26) on the conductive structure to cover the lead, wherein the plating covers a portion of the lead in the cavity to provide a plated cavity, wherein the plated cavity defines a wettable flank of the lead (Fig. 28; para. 0058).
Rivera-Marty only shows a cross-section view of the semiconductor device and is therefore silent with respect to wherein the cavity is bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure, and wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity.
Gong teaches a similar device (Fig. 7) wherein the cavity is bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure (202), and wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the cavity of Rivera-Marty be bound by a jamb surface of the dielectric structure wherein the jamb surface comprises an exposed side of the dielectric structure facing the cavity as taught by Gong for the purpose of providing isolation between neighboring leads/wettable flanks.
Re claim 25, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein the plating structure comprises a metallic coating (para. 0041).
Claim(s) 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera-Marty (US Pub. 2019/0148270) in view of Gong et al. (US Pub. 2011/0244629) and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2017/0256509).
Re claim 24, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein a bottommost surface of the lead is flush relative to an exterior surface of the dielectric structure; as opposed to depressed, as claimed.
Lee teaches a device (Fig. 9) wherein a bottommost surface of the lead (204) is depressed relative to an exterior surface (203) of the dielectric structure (202) for the purpose of roughening/de-burring (para. 0044-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bottommost surface of the lead Rivera-Marty such that it was depressed relative to an exterior surface of the dielectric structure as taught by Lee for the same advantage of roughening/de-burring the leads.
Re claim 26, Rivera-Marty teaches wherein an exterior surface of the plating is not coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure; as opposed to coplanar, as claimed.
Lee teaches a device (Fig. 9) wherein an exterior surface of the plating (608) is coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure as a result of etching back the lead(s) for the purpose of roughening/de-burring (para. 0044-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to etch back the bottommost surface of the lead Rivera-Marty such that an exterior surface of plating layer is coplanar with the exterior surface of the dielectric structure as taught by Lee for the same advantage of roughening/de-burring the leads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 and 23 (and their corresponding dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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 (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899