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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 13-20) in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 3 and 16 recite the broad recitation “the electronic devices”, and the claim also recites “the mold compound” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further, claim 3 is circular since electronic devices is the subject of the claim and cannot also be a claim limitation.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0178125 (Matsuura).
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). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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) if the same invention is not being claimed; 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 in the reference 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.
Matsuura discloses (Fig. 4A-4F)
1. 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;
performing a multi-step trimming process ([0051]) to the array of leadframes 451 to remove the tie bars 455 and the dam bars 415 from each of the leadframes 411 of the array of leadframes 451.
Matsuura discloses
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the leads 413, 416, 418 include inner leads and outer leads (Fig. 4A), wherein 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 includes attaching the wire bonds 419 from the active side of the die 405 to the inner leads 413.
Matsuura discloses
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the mold compound 485 is formed over the inner leads 413.
Matsuura discloses
7. The method of claim 1, wherein attaching a die 405 to each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451 includes depositing a die attach material ([0049]) onto a die pad 421 of each leadframe 411 in the array of leadframes 451 and depositing the die 405 onto the die attach material ([0049]).
Matsuura discloses
13. A method of singulating an array of electronic devices comprising:
providing an array of leadframes 451, the array of leadframes 451 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;
performing a first trimming step ([0051]) to remove the tie bars 455 from the array of leadframes 451; and
performing a second trimming step ([0051]) to remove the dam bars 415.
Matsuura discloses
18. The method of claim 13, wherein the leads 413, 416, 418 include inner leads and outer leads (Fig. 4A), wherein 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 includes attaching the wire bonds 419 from the active side of the die 405 to the inner leads 413.
Matsuura discloses
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the mold compound 485 is formed over the inner leads 413.
Matsuura discloses
20. The method of claim 13, wherein attaching a die 405 to each leadframe 411 of the array of leadframes 451 includes depositing a die attach material ([0049]) onto a die pad 421 of each leadframe 411 in the array of leadframes 451 and depositing the die 405 onto the die attach material ([0049]).
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 2-4, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Matsuura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,808,355 (Kim).
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).
Matsuura discloses a multi-step trimming process, but fails to disclose
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a multi-step trimming process to the array of leadframes to remove the tie bars and the dam bars from each of the leadframes of the array of leadframes includes providing a cutting device having an angular cutting tip and a punch, performing a first trimming step with the angular cutting tip to remove the tie bars from the array of leadframes, and performing a second trimming step with the punch to remove the dam bars.
Kim teaches (Figs. 3, 4)
A method comprising:
providing 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 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.
To the extent taught and understood, the combination of references fails to disclose the benefit as it relates to mold flash (unexpected results)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein performing a first trimming step with the angular cutting tip to remove the tie bars from the array of leadframes, and performing a second trimming step with the punch to remove the dam bars leaves the electronic devices and specifically, the mold compound free from mold flash.
Applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed method from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04, 2144.05, 2144.09. Further, the benefit is not a claim limitation.
Kim teaches
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising forming the leads to bend in a direction toward or away from the active side of the die.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form leads with a bend in Matsuura. The motivation would be to improve the hardness of a leadframe as taught by Kim.
Matsuura discloses a multi-step trimming process, but fails to disclose
14. The method of claim 13, wherein performing a first trimming step to remove the tie bars from the array of leadframes includes providing a cutting device having an angular cutting tip and a punch and removing the tie bars with the angular cutting tip.
Kim teaches (Figs. 3, 4)
A method comprising:
providing 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 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.
Matsuura in view of Kim teaches
15. The method of claim 14, wherein performing a second trimming step to remove the dam bars includes removing the dam bars with the punch.
To the extent taught and understood, the combination of references fails to disclose the benefit as it relates to mold flash (unexpected results)
16. The method of claim 15, wherein removing the tie bars with the angular cutting tip and removing the dam bars with the punch leaves the electronic device and specifically, the mold compound free from mold flash.
Applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed method from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04, 2144.05, 2144.09. Further, the benefit is not a claim limitation.
Kim teaches
17. The method of claim 13 further comprising forming the leads to bend in a direction toward or away from the active side of the die.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form leads with a bend in Matsuura. The motivation would be to improve the hardness of a leadframe as taught by Kim.
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. 2005/0186711 (Yee), 2015/0294929 (Bai), 2022/0336331 (Ho) teach a method of fabricating electronic devices including trimming tie bars and dam bars.
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