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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-12 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new reference for teaching matters specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 1, 7, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0178125 (Matsuura) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,710,064 (Song).
Matsuura discloses (Fig. 4A-4F)
1. (Currently Amended) A method of fabricating electronic devices comprising:
providing an array of leadframes 451, the array of leadframes 411 including leads 413, 416, 418, tie bars 455, and dam bars 415;
attaching a die 405 to each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451;
attaching wire bonds 419 from an active side of the die 405 to the leads 413 on each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451;
forming a mold compound 485 over the die 405, the wire bonds 419, and a portion of the leads on each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451.
Matsuura fails to disclose
removing the tie bars from each leadframe of the array of leadframes; and
after removing the tie bars, removing the dam bars from each leadframe of the array of leadframes.
Song teaches (11)
A method of fabricating electronic devices comprising:
removing the tie bars 24 from each leadframe 20 of the array of leadframes; and
after removing the tie bars 24, removing the dam bars 24 from each leadframe 20 of the array of leadframes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the tie bars before removing the dam bars in Matsuura. The motivation would be to avoid coating the exposed bottom surface of the die pad with plating film. Accordingly, the die pad can be electrically isolated from the side rails before carrying out the plating process. Then the dam bars are cut in order for the cut portions of the lead frame flanking where the dam bar to be coated with plating film as well. Therefore, if the tie bars also were cut off, the die pad would not be supported, since the molding resin would be injected into the area as taught by Song.
Matsuura discloses
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein attaching the die 405 to each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451 comprises depositing a die attach material ([0049]) onto a die pad 421 of each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451 and depositing the die 405 onto the die attach material ([0049]).
Matsuura discloses
13. (Currently Amended) A method of singulating an array of electronic devices comprising:
forming the array of electronic devices 105 (circular) using an array of leadframes 451, the array of leadframes 451 including leads 413, 416, 418, tie bars 455, and dam bars 415;
performing a first trimming step ([0051]) to remove the tie bars 455 from the array of leadframes 451.
Matsuura fails to disclose
after performing the first trimming step, performing a second trimming step to remove the dam bars.
Song teaches (11)
A method of singulating an array of electronic devices comprising:
after performing the first trimming step, performing a second trimming step to remove the dam bars 24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the tie bars before removing the dam bars in Matsuura. The motivation would be to avoid coating the exposed bottom surface of the die pad with plating film. Accordingly, the die pad can be electrically isolated from the side rails before carrying out the plating process. Then the dam bars are cut in order for the cut portions of the lead frame flanking where the dam bar to be coated with plating film as well. Therefore, if the tie bars also were cut off, the die pad would not be supported, since the molding resin would be injected into the area as taught by Song.
Claim 2-6, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Matsuura in view of Song as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,808,355 (Kim).
The combination of references teaches a multi-step trimming process, but fails to teach
2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein removing the tie bars comprises cutting the tie bars using a cutting tip of a cutting device.
Kim teaches (Figs. 3, 4)
A method comprising:
wherein removing the tie bars 12 comprises cutting the tie bars 12 using a cutting tip of a cutting device 101 having an angular cutting tip and a punch.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutting device having an angular cutting tip and a punch in the modified method of Matsuura. The motivation would be to improve the hardness of a leadframe by designing a lead line located between tie bars of a leadframe have a large bend in certain parts as taught by Kim.
Kim teaches
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein removing the dam bars 15 comprises cutting the dam bars 15 using a punch of the cutting device 101.
Kim teaches
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2 further comprising bending the leads 10 in a direction away from the active side of the die (on punch 11).
Kim teaches (Fig. 3)
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 3, wherein the cutting tip is in contact with the punch.
Kim teaches (Fig. 3)
6. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein the cutting tip comprises an angular cutting tip.
Song teaches the two trimming steps and Kim teaches the cutting device
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13, wherein performing the first trimming step to remove the tie bars from the array of leadframes comprises cutting the tie bars with the angular cutting tip.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutting device having an angular cutting tip and a punch in the modified method of Matsuura. The motivation would be to improve the hardness of a leadframe by designing a lead line located between tie bars of a leadframe have a large bend in certain parts as taught by Kim.
Song teaches the two trimming steps and Kim teaches the cutting device
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 14, wherein performing the second trimming step to remove the dam bars from the array of leadframes comprises cutting the dam bars using a punch of the cutting device.
Kim teaches (Fig. 3)
16. (Currently Amended)The method of claim 14, wherein the cutting tip comprises an angular cutting tip.
Kim teaches (Fig. 3)
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein the cutting tip is in contact with the punch.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2021/0225744 (Singer), 2010/0029043 (Lee), U.S. Patent Nos. 7,968,998 (Choi), 7,808,084 (Lee) teach a method of fabricating electronic devices including trimming tie bars and dam bars.
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 TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights