DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicants’ 18 NOV 2025 election (REM page 7) without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-16, is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 JAN 2025 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission follows provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the following reason(s):
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claims 1-4: “clip paddles”. The Office notes that FIG. 3A shows clips 310.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and all subsequent depending claims therein are objected to because of the following informalities. Typographical errors exist in the following claim language:
claim 1, line 17, replace “a first direction” with “the first direction”; and
claim 1, line 18, replace “a second direction” with “the second direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows (Graham Factors):
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuergut et al. (US 20220375830; below, “Fuergut” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference) with evidence from and/or in view of Li et al. (US 20210159403; below, “Li” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known method” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, Fuergut, in Figures 5A-5J, 7E, and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0112], discloses a method, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
648
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a lead-frame strip (160, 162: Fig. 5A, [0058]-[0059]) comprising a lead-frame block (portion of lead-frame strip), the lead-frame block comprising a plurality of lead-frame paddles (150, 152) extending in a first direction, and a plurality of lead-frame paddles (150, 152) extending in a second direction, the first direction generally perpendicular to the second direction, the lead-frame strip (160, 162) comprising a plurality of first alignment holes (e.g., perforated side rails, see Li below) and a plurality of first alignment marks (e.g., perforated side rails, see Li below);
forming solder (178) via solder printing on each lead-frame paddle of the plurality of lead-frame paddles (150, 152);
providing a plurality of dies (132: Fig. 5B, [0061]), each die having a first side and a second side opposite the first side;
attaching the first side of each die of the plurality of dies (132) to a respective paddle of the plurality of lead-frame paddles (150, 152) of the lead-frame strip (160, 162);
forming solder (178: [0061]) via solder printing (Fig. 5D, [0064]) on the second side of each die of the plurality of dies (132);
forming a clip-frame strip (184: Fig. 5F, [0066]) comprising a clip-frame block (portion of clip-frame strip), the clip-frame block comprising a plurality of clip paddles (192) extending in a first direction, and a plurality of clip paddles (192) extending in a second direction, the first direction generally perpendicular to the second direction, the clip-frame strip (184) comprising a plurality of second alignment holes (e.g., perforated side rails, see Li below) and a plurality of second alignment marks (e.g., perforated side rails, see Li below);
(see Li for: aligning the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184) by aligning the plurality of first alignment holes with the plurality of second alignment holes, and aligning the plurality of first alignment marks with the plurality of second alignment marks); and
attaching (Fig. 5I, [0069]) the lead-frame strip (160, 162) to the clip-frame strip (184) by attaching each paddle of the plurality of clip paddles (192) of the clip-frame strip (184) to the second side of a respective die of the plurality of dies (132) of the lead-frame strip (160, 162).
Fuergut is silent regarding aligning the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184) by aligning the plurality of first alignment holes with the plurality of second alignment holes, and aligning the plurality of first alignment marks with the plurality of second alignment marks.
Li, in paragraphs [0038] to [0040], teaches using alignment markers to placement accuracy between the leadframe and the clip frame (e.g., [0039]).
Fuergut and Li are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Fuergut as taught by Li because: 1. high precision component placement is realized (Li [0039]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 2, modified Fuergut discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a number of clip paddles (192) of the plurality of clip paddles equaling a number of dies (132) of the plurality of dies ([0068]).
RE 3, modified Fuergut discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each clip paddle of the plurality of clip paddles (192) corresponding to a die of the plurality of dies (132) ([0068]).
RE 4, modified Fuergut discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of clip paddles (192) are attached to the plurality of dies (132) at essentially a same time ([0068]-[0069], [0079]).
RE 8, modified Fuergut discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising encapsulating (encapsulant body 102, FIG. 5J, [0072]) each die of the multiple plurality dies (132) to form chips.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li with further evidence from and/or in further view of Moll et al. (US 20040174690; below, “Moll” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 9, modified Fuergut is silent regarding the method of claim 8, further comprising testing the chips before separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184).
Moll, in FIGS. 1-3 and related text, teaches testing the chips before separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (e.g., FIG. 3, [0024], [0026]).
Fuergut, Li, and Moll are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Moll because: 1. yield is improved; 2. cost is reduced; and 3. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li with further evidence from and/or in further view of Scherbarth et al. (US 20020089041; below, “Scherbarth” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 10, modified Fuergut is silent regarding the method of claim 8, further comprising de-junking the chips, the lead-frame strip (160, 162), and the clip-frame strip (184) before separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184).
Scherbarth, in Figures 1-3 and related text, teaches de-junking chips and a lead frame before separating the chips (e.g., Fig. 3, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0024]).
Fuergut, Li, and Scherbarth are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Scherbarth because: 1. yield is improved by removing contaminants; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li with further evidence from and/or in further view of Komatsu et al. (US 20120132938; below, “Komatsu” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 11, modified Fuergut is silent regarding the method of claim 8, further comprising plating exposed leads of the chips before separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184).
Komatsu, in Figures 1-12C and related text, teaches plating exposed leads of a chip before separating the chip (e.g., FIGS. 1-2B, [0003], [0019]).
Fuergut, Li, and Komatsu are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Komatsu because: 1. copper is protected from corrosion; 2. solderability is improved; and 3. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 13, modified Fuergut is silent regarding method of claim 8, further comprising separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184).
Komatsu, in Figures 1-12C and related text, teaches separating chips from a lead frame (e.g., FIGS. 1-2B, [0003], [0019]).
Fuergut, Li, and Komatsu are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious ... to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Komatsu because: 1. shorter electrical paths having drastically reduced interconnection resistance and inductance are achieved; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 14, modified Fuergut is silent regarding method of claim 13, further comprising shaping exposed leads of the chips after separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184).
Komatsu, in Figures 1-12C and related text, teaches shaping (silver plating layers formed on top and bottom surface of copper) exposed leads of chips after separating the chips (e.g., FIGS. 1-2B, [0003], [0019]).
Fuergut, Li, and Komatsu are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious ... to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Komatsu because: 1. yield is improved by removing contaminants; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li with further evidence from and/or in further view of Lohberg et al. (US 20060086577; below, “Lohberg” – 7 JAN 2025 IDS noted reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 12, modified Fuergut is silent regarding the method of claim 8, further comprising marking housings (112/208) formed by the encapsulating of the chips before separating the chips from the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and clip-frame strip (184).
Lohberg, in Figures 1-7 and related text, teaches marking housings formed by the encapsulating of the chips before separating the chips (e.g., Figs. 4a, 4b, [0005], [0008], [0029]).
Fuergut, Li, and Lohberg are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Fuergut with evidence from and/or in view of Li as taught by Lohberg because: 1. traceability and quality control is improved; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, KIKUCHI et al. (US 20230343684), is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. KIKUCHI et al. does not teach, inter alia, forming a clip-frame strip (184) comprising a clip-frame block (306 – one shown FIG3A), the clip-frame block (306) comprising a plurality of clip paddles (192) extending in a first direction, and a plurality of clip paddles (192) extending in a second direction, the first direction generally perpendicular to the second direction, the clip-frame strip (184) comprising a plurality of second alignment holes (808) and a plurality of second alignment marks (808); aligning the lead-frame strip (160, 162) and the clip-frame strip (184) by aligning the plurality of first alignment holes (408) with the plurality of second alignment holes (808), and aligning the plurality of first alignment marks (408) with the plurality of second alignment marks (808); and attaching the lead-frame strip (160, 162) to the clip-frame strip (184) by attaching each paddle of the plurality of clip paddles (192) of the clip-frame strip (184) to the second side of a respective die of the plurality of dies (132) of the lead-frame strip (160, 162).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. 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.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815