DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
As noted in the previous office action, claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither teaches nor suggests two recesses that are each applied on opposite sides of the connection.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 7/20/26 have been considered are not persuasive.
It is argued that the combination fails to teach “the die pad is provided with at least one recess that is near the connection with the at least the further bond clip”. Sawai teaches the recess is on the lead, and not the die pad. The reason for combining, the improvement in alignment, are specific to the connection to the lead and not the die pad.
Note that the rejection is saying that it would be obvious to use the recess on the lead of Sawai on the die pad of Takada, since Sawai teaches the recess improves alignment, meaning the relative positioning of the lead, and to improve electrical reliability. A skilled artisan would know that it is within their ordinary level of skill that this improvement in relative positioning and electrical reliability would be applicable to the bond clip connection on the die pad too.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al., US 2015/0206830, in view of Sawai, JP 2011049244A.
Regarding claim 1, Takada (figures 6 & 14) teaches a semiconductor package comprising:
a lead metallic frame 4LS(4)/3L(3),4LD(4)/3H(3),4HD(4) having a die pad 3L(3),4LD(4);
a semiconductor die structure 2L being mounted on the die pad 3L(3),4LD(4) of the lead frame 4LS(4)/3L(3),4LD(4)/3H(3),4HD(4);
at least a first bond clip 7LSR(7R,7) connected with the semiconductor die structure 2L; and
at least a further bond clip 7HSR(7R,7) connected with the die pad 3L(3),4LD(4) of the lead frame 4LS(4)/3L(3),4LD(4)/3H(3),4HD(4) by means of a solder junction (figure 14 & paragraph 0170 states the bond clip 7R is soldered the bond pad 22).
Takada fails to teach the die pad is provided with at least one recess that is near the connection with the at least the further bond clip, the at least one recess being formed as a reservoir to accommodate an increased volume of solder for the solder junction.
Sawai (figure 4) teaches the lead frame 41 is provided with at least one recess 43 that is near the connection with the at least the further bond clip 56, the at least one recess 43 being formed as a reservoir to accommodate an increased volume of solder 72 for the solder junction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the recess of Sawai in the invention of Takada because Sawai teaches it improves alignment (abstract).
It is noted that Takada teaches the recess on the lead and not on the die pad. But the rejection is saying that it would be obvious to also use the recess of Sawai on the die pad of Takada, since Sawai teaches the recess improves alignment, meaning the relative positioning of the lead, and to improve electrical reliability. The benefits of using the recess on the lead would also be beneficial when used on the die pad. A skilled artisan would know that it is within their ordinary level of skill that this improvement in relative positioning and electrical reliability would be applicable to the bond clip connection on the die pad too.
With respect to claim 2, Sawai (figure 3) teaches the at least one recess 43 has an elongated configuration.
As to claim 3, Sawai (figure 3) teaches the at least one elongated recess 43 has a V-shaped depth profile.
In re claim 6, Sawai (figure 3) teaches the at least one elongated recess 43 is shaped as a trench or a groove.
Concerning claim 8, Sawai (figure 1) teaches the at least one elongated recess 43 extends in a direction transverse to a longitudinal orientation of the die pad 3.
Pertaining to claim 10, Sawai (figure 3) teaches the V-shaped depth profile of the at least one elongated recess 43 has a vertex that is of an angle of approximately 90°.
In claim 13, Sawai (figure 1) teaches the at least one elongated recess 43 extends in a direction transverse to a longitudinal orientation of the die pad 3.
Regarding claim 14, Sawai (figure21) teaches a molding resin case 6 encapsulating the semiconductor package.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 8/18/26
Prosecution Insights