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 .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 3/11/2026.
Claims 12-29 are pending. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 21-29 are new. Claim 12 is currently amended. Claims 12, 21 and 26 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amendments, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to 112 Rejections, as indicated in line number 2 of the office action mailed 12/15/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn, and independent claim 12 is allowed as noted below in the section “Allowable Subject Matter”.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites the limitation “and elevated portion” in line 2 of the claim, which appears to be a typographical error, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “an elevated portion”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “and elevated portion” in line 2 of the claim, which appears to be a typographical error, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “an elevated portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
A. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Cabahug
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.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabahug et al. (US 2003/0193080 A1, hereinafter “Cabahug”).
Regarding independent claim 21, Figures 2 and 3(a) of Cabahug (as viewed upside down) disclose an apparatus, comprising:
a lead 22 (“leadframe structure”- ¶0049) including an internal portion (i.e., the portion of 22 connected to bump 36(b)), and elevated portion (i.e., the portion of 22 connected to substrate 34 covered by mold 40), and an angled portion (i.e., the diagonal portion of 22) connecting the internal portion to the elevated portion;
a semiconductor die 30 (“semiconductor die”- ¶0049) electrically connected to the lead 22 via a bump 36(b) (“solder bump”- ¶0049);
an indenture 23 (“aperture”- ¶0060; see Fig. 3(a) for notation) into an upper surface of the internal portion; and
a mold compound 40 (“molding material”- ¶0055) contacting the indenture 23, the semiconductor die 30, and the bump 36(b).
Regarding claim 22, Figures 2 and 3(a) of Cabahug (as viewed upside down) discloses the apparatus further comprising an external portion (i.e., the portion of 22 connected to substrate 34 not covered by mold 40) connected to the internal portion, the external portion external to the mold compound 40.
Regarding claim 23, Figures 2 and 3(a) of Cabahug (as viewed upside down) disclose wherein the indenture 23 includes a groove canal 23 into the internal portion that extends across the internal portion, since indenture 23 extends partially across the internal portion.
Regarding claim 24, Figures 2 and 3(a) of Cabahug (as viewed upside down) disclose wherein the indenture 23 includes a dip canal 23 into the internal portion that extends across the internal portion, since indenture 23 extends partially across the internal portion.
Regarding claim 25, Figures 2 and 3(a) of Cabahug (as viewed upside down) disclose wherein the indenture 23 includes a through hole 23 extending into the upper surface of the internal portion of the lead 22 and through the lead 22.
B. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Bai
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (US 2019/0074254 A1, hereinafter “Bai”).
Regarding independent claim 26, Figures 6A-6D of Bai disclose an apparatus, comprising:
a lead 10/26 (collectively 10 “lead frame” and 26 “ring”- ¶0018) including an internal portion (i.e., the portion of 10 connected to bumps 54 and die 52; see Fig. 6D), and elevated portion (i.e., the top half of 26; see Fig. 6D), and an angled portion (i.e., the interface between the sidewall of 26 and the top surface of 10; see Fig. 6D) connecting the internal portion to the elevated portion;
a semiconductor die 52 (“die”- ¶0026) electrically connected to the lead 10/26 via a bump 54 (“balls”- ¶0026);
a mold lock feature (i.e., the interface between the sidewall of 26 and the top surface of 10, which forms a “locking feature” with mold 44- ¶0023) in the lead 10/26, the mold lock feature includes an angle of the angled portion being either a normal angle or an acute angle formed between an upper surface of the internal portion and the angled portion; and
a mold compound 44 (“molding compound”- ¶0022) contacting the mold lock feature, the semiconductor die 52, and the bump 54.
Regarding claim 28, Figures 6A-6D of Bai disclose the apparatus further comprising an external portion (i.e., the outer ends of 10 not covered by mold 44; see Fig. 6D) connected to the internal portion, the external portion external to the mold compound 44.
Regarding claim 29, Figures 6A-6D of Bai disclose wherein a surface opposite to the upper surface of the internal portion is a board side surface of the apparatus.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Ito et al. (US 2012/0189822 A1, hereinafter “Ito”).
Regarding claim 27, Figures 6A-6D of Bai disclose wherein the apparatus is a quad flat package (QFP) (¶0001).
Bai does not expressly disclose wherein the apparatus is a small outline transistor (SOT) package.
Ito discloses different appropriate package formats including quad flat package (QFP) and small outline transistor (SOT) package (¶0095).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bai such that the apparatus is a small outline transistor (SOT) package as taught by Ito for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and appropriate type of package format (Ito ¶0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 12, the claim is allowed for reasons as previously indicated in line number 3 of the office action mailed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 13-20 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 12.
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 JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights