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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 01/07/2026 is accepted, in which, claims 3, 7, 10, 17, and 19 are amended. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claims 1-20 await an action on the merits as follows.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amended specification.
The rejection of claims 7, 10, 17, and 19 under USC 112b are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, on page 8 of the response Applicant argues,
"Thus, Jang explicitly teaches that the substrate is placed below and outside of the cavity or opening formed by the body portions."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cavity 162 taught by Jang is not used in the rejection. Instead, Examiner cites 160OP as the opening between sidewalls 160A/B. The opening 160OP, as with any opening, is a space between two objects that extends vertically past the objects. Examiner points to the example diagram below. Elements A, B, and C can be said to be in the center of the opening between objects 1 and 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although elements A and C are above and below elements 1 and 2 respectively, they are considered by Examiner to be in the center of the opening. Element C is analogous to the substrate of Jang in the center opening between the first and second lead frame portions. Therefore, Jang meets the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 17.
To overcome the rejection, Applicant should consider limiting the position of the substrate vertically within the topographical extension of the horizontal upper and lower surfaces of the lead frame portions in addition to the limitation of the substrate being in the center of the opening.
Regarding claim 3, on page 8 of the response, Applicant argues,
"Further, claim 3, as amended recites "the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters (mm)." Jang recites "In some examples, dielectric structure 111 can have a thickness in the range from approximately 0.1 millimeters (mm) to approximately 0.5 mm" and accordingly fails to disclose a thickness of less than 0.10 mm as recited in amended claim 3."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. The specification is silent to the criticality of the thickness of the second sidewall of the substrate. [Pg 4, Ln 30 - Pg 5, Ln 2] states the second sidewall thickness 134 is less than the first sidewall dimension 132, having a thickness of less than or equal to 0.10 millimeters (mm), but there is not mention as to why this dimension is critical to the design.
[Pg 10, Ln 30 - Pg 11, Ln 3] goes on to state the device includes the first lead frame portion and the second lead frame portion have a first sidewall dimension of less than or equal to 0.20 millimeters (mm). The substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than or equal to 0.10 millimeters (mm). The molding compound has a dimension of the combination of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, and the third sidewall. The first die is a micro-electromechanical system. Again, the specification is silent to the criticality of the second sidewall dimension of the substrate.
As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, on page 8 of the response, Applicant argues,
"But the contacts 112b of this surface are not coplanar with the first contact surface of the first and second lead frame portions as required by claim 9. Instead, the Examiner points to a different set of contacts 112a as allegedly meeting the coplanar limitation. Because Jang discloses that the first surface of the substrate has a plurality of contacts that are not coplanar with the first contact surface of the first and second lead frame portions, it fails to anticipate claim 9."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites contact pads 112 of Jang, seen on the leftmost and rightmost portion of the substrate 110 extending from one side of the substrate to the other, not the subparts of the contact pads citied by Applicant above. Figure 3 of Jang shows contact pads 112 as a continuous metal material flush with both the top and bottom surfaces as they extend through the substrate. this makes the top surface of the contact pads coplanar with the first contact surface of the first and second lead frame portions.
As a single object, contact pads 112 of Jang meet the limitations of claim 9 and the argument is traversed.
Regarding claim 10, on page 8 of the response, Applicant argues,
"Jang does not teach or suggest solder balls coupled to contact pads on the first contact surface of the first and second lead frame portions."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In figure 3 of Jang, element 170 are solder balls coupled to contact pads 112. The contact pads are directly on the first surface of the substrate which is indirectly on the first contact surfaces of the first and second lead frame portions. All stated elements are in contact. It is well known in the art that "on" includes two objects in either direct or indirect contact. Therefore, the contact pads are on the first contact surfaces of the first and second lead frame portions.
Jang meets the limitations of claim 10 and the argument is traversed.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (US 20210265225 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a device (100', Fig 3), comprising:
a first lead frame portion (160A; 160 portion on left side of Fig 3.) having a first contact surface (160AB; bottom of 160A) opposite to a second contact surface (160AT; top of 160A), and
a first sidewall (160AR; right sidewall of 160A) transverse (shown transverse) to the first (160AB) and second (160AT) contact surface;
a second lead frame portion (160B; 160 portion on right side of Fig 3.) having a first contact surface (160BB; bottom of 160B) opposite to a second contact surface (106BT; top of 160B);
a center opening (160OP; opening between internal sidewalls of 160A/B) between (shown between) the first lead frame portion (160A) and the second lead frame portion (160B);
a substrate (110) in (shown in) the center opening (160OP) between (shown between) the first lead frame portion (160A) and the second lead frame portion (160B),
the substrate (110) having a first surface (110B; bottom of 110) and a second surface (110T; top of 110) opposite (shown opposite) the first surface (110B), a second sidewall (110L; left sidewall of 110),
the second sidewall (110L) being smaller (shown smaller) than the first sidewall (160AR);
a first die (120) on (shown on) the substrate (110), the first die (120) having a third sidewall (120L; left sidewall of 120),
the first sidewall (160AR) being larger (shown larger) than the second sidewall (110L) and the third sidewall (120L); and
a molding compound (150/160) covering (shown covering) the first and second lead frame portions (160A/B), the first die (120), and the substrate (110).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the first lead frame portion (160A, Fig 3) and the second lead frame portion (160B) have a first sidewall (160AR) dimension (160AR-H; thickness of 160) of less than or equal (thickness approximately 0.2 mm, [0039]) to 0.20 millimeters (mm) (200 microns).
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the molding compound (150, Fig 3) has a dimension (H; horizontal width of 150 from sidewall 160AR to a point equal to the summation of the thicknesses of 160AR, 110L, and 120L) of the combination of the first sidewall (160AR), the second sidewall (110L), and the third sidewall (120L).
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the first lead frame portion (160A, Fig 3) includes a fourth external sidewall (160AL; left sidewall of 160A) transverse (shown transverse) to the first and second contact surface (160AB/AT),
the fourth external sidewall (160AL) substantially the same (shown the same) as the first sidewall (160AR); and
the fourth external sidewall (160AL) being greater (shown greater) than the second sidewall (110L) of the substrate (110).
Regarding claim 7, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein a fourth dimension (130D; height from top of 120 to top of curve of wire 130) of the peak curvature of a plurality of connectors (130) on (shown indirectly on) a second surface (120T; top of 120) of the first die (120) is equal to or less (less; ~10 microns; the pad 121 is 5 microns thick. Wire 130 is shown curving less than that height above 121, making the peak curvature approximately 10 microns which is well less than the 50 microns = 0.05 mm) than 0.05 millimeters (mm) (50 microns).
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the substrate (110, Fig 3) is composed of an organic laminate material (laminate, [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the first surface (110B, Fig 3) of the substrate (110) has a plurality of contacts (112) coplanar (112 shown coplanar with bottom of 110 and top of 110 by extending through the substrate 110, making the top of 112 coplanar with the bottom of 160) with the first contact surface (160AB/BB) of the first (160A) and second (160B) lead frame portions.
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach further comprising a plurality of solder balls (170, Fig 3) coupled (shown coupled) to a plurality of contact pads (112) on (shown on) the first surface (110B) of the substrate (110) and the first contact surface (160AB/BB) of the first (160A) and second (160B) lead frame portions.
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the molding compound (150, Fig 3) is composed of resin (resin, [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Jang teaches A device (100', Fig 3), comprising:
a lead frame (160) having a first dimension (160D; thickness of 160 in vertical direction of Fig 3) in a first direction (Y; vertical direction in Fig 3);
an opening (160OP; opening between left and right portions of 160) in the lead frame (160);
a substrate (110) in (shown in) the opening (160OP) in the lead frame (160),
the substrate (110) having a second dimension (110D; thickness of 110) in the first direction (Y),
the first dimension (160D) being greater (shown greater) than the second dimension (110D); and
a first die (120) on (shown on) the substrate (110),
the first die (120) and the substrate (110) having a third dimension (D; thickness of 120 and 110 combined) in the first direction (Y),
the first dimension (160D) being greater (shown greater; thickness of 160 = 200 microns, [0039], thickness of 120 = 50 microns, [0030], thickness of 110 = 100 microns; therefore, the combined thickness D = 150 microns which is less than the thickness 160D) than the third dimension (D).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches the device of claim 12 and goes on to teach wherein the substrate (110, Fig 3) has a first surface (110B; bottom of 110) opposite (shown opposite) a second surface (110T; top of 110),
the first die (120) being on (shown indirectly on) the first surface (110B),
at least one (130R) of the plurality of wires (130) has a curvature where a fourth dimension (130D; height from top of 120 to top of curve of wire 130) from a peak of the curvature to the second surface (110T) of the substrate (110) is less (less; ~10 microns; the pad 121 is 5 microns thick. Wire 130 is shown curving less than that height above 121, making the peak curvature approximately 10 microns which is well less than the 200 microns = 0.2 mm) than or equal to 0.20 millimeters (mm) (200 microns).
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches the device of claim 12 and goes on to teach further comprising a molding compound (150, Fig 3) covering (shown covering) the lead frame (160), the opening (160OP), the substrate (110), and the first die (120).
Regarding claim 16, Jang teaches the device of claim 15 and goes on to teach wherein a fifth dimension (H; horizontal width of 150 from an internal sidewall of 160 to a point greater than the summation of the thicknesses of 160D, 110D, D, and 130D, Fig 3) including the molding compound (150) is equal to or greater (greater) than the summation of the first (160D), second (110D), third (D), and fourth dimensions (130D).
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.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20210265225 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Guo (US 20110241187 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jang teaches a method (method, [0004]), comprising:
forming a plurality of layers (PL; 110/150/160/120/122/140/180, Fig 3) on (shown on) a carrier tape (123; tape, [0034]) using a lead frame (160), forming a plurality of layers (PL) including:
forming a plurality of lead frame portions (160),
the lead frame portions (160) having a first side (160I; internal sidewall of 160) opposite (shown opposite) a second side (160E; external sidewall of 160),
a first surface (160B; bottom of 160) coupled (shown coupled) to the carrier tape (123), opposite (shown opposite) a second surface (160T; top of 160) transverse (shown transverse) to the first side (160I) and second side (160E);
the first side (160I) facing (shown facing) a center opening (160OP; opening between 160 portions) between (shown between) the lead frame portions (160) and the second side (160E) facing (shown facing) externally;
placing a substrate (110) in (shown in) the center opening (160OP) between (shown between) the lead frame portions (160),
the substrate (110) having a first surface (110B; bottom of 110) opposite (shown opposite) a second surface (110T; top of 110);
coupling (shown coupled) a first die (120) to the substrate (110) by an adhesive (123; adhesive tape, [0034]),
the first die (120) having a first surface (120B; bottom of 120) opposite (shown opposite) a second surface (120T; top of 120);
forming a molding compound (150) encapsulating (shown encapsulating; an encapsulation part, [0040]) the lead frame portions (160), the substrate (110), the first die (120), and a plurality of wires (130);
Jang fails to explicitly teach singulating a portion of the lead frame portions, the substrate, the first die, the plurality of wires, and the molding compound forming a semiconductor package.
However, Guo teaches singulating (singulation, [0024]) a portion of the lead frame portions, the substrate, the first die, the plurality of wires, and the molding compound forming a semiconductor package (56, Fig 2A).
Jang and Guo are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of component package devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Jang with the features of Guo to create singulating a portion of the lead frame portions, the substrate, the first die, the plurality of wires, and the molding compound forming a semiconductor package which reduces adhesive bleeding and prevents wire bonding contamination (Guo, [Abs.]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jang and Guo discloses the method of claim 17. Jang goes on to teach wherein the plurality of wires (130, Fig 3) are placed on (shown on) the first die (120) having a curvature height (130D; height from top of 120 to top of curve of wire 130) equal to or less (less; ~10 microns; the pad 121 is 5 microns thick. Wire 130 is shown curving less than that height above 121, making the peak curvature approximately 10 microns with is well less than the 50 microns = 0.05 mm) than 0.05 millimeters (mm) (50 microns).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jang and Guo discloses the method of claim 17. Jang goes on to teach wherein the lead frame portions (160, Fig 3), the substrate (110), the first die (120), and the molding compound (150) have a total combination thickness (450 microns; thickness of 160 = 200 microns, [0039]; thickness of 110 = 100 microns, [0025]; thickness of 120 = 50 microns, [0030]; thickness of 150 shown as approximately the same as 160 or 200 microns; total thickness of 550 microns which is less than 1000 microns = 1.0 mm) of less (less) than or equal to 1.0 millimeter (mm) (1000 microns).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20210265225 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Wachtler (US 20190164807 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and the first die (120, Fig 3).
Jang fails to explicitly teach the first die is a micro-electromechanical system.
However, Wachtler teaches wherein the first die is a micro-electromechanical system (die may be a MEMS, [0030]).
Jang and Wachtler are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of component package devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Jang with the features of Wachtler to create a device wherein the first die is a micro-electromechanical system to protect high precision components or structures from forces and/or stresses. In some instances, example electronic packages and/or related methods of forming electronic packaging disclosed herein isolate high precision and/or fragile components or structures from mechanical and/or thermal stresses (Wachtler, [0021]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20210265225 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Koduri (US 20060006510 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jang teaches the device of claim 12 and goes on to teach further comprising a plurality of wires (130, Fig 3),
a first set (130R/L; right and left 130) of the plurality of wires (130) coupled between (shown coupled between) the first die (120) and the substrate (110),
Jang fails to explicitly teach a second set of the plurality of wires coupled between the first die and the lead frame.
However, Koduri teaches a second set (55, Fig 5) of the plurality of wires coupled between (shown coupled between) the first die and the lead frame.
Jang and Koduri are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of component package devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Jang with the features of Koduri to create a device with a second set of the plurality of wires coupled between the first die and the lead frame which limits the extent of delamination between the plastic encapsulation and substrate, enables reliable bonds to be made to the chip pad, and does not compromise the package integrity (Koduri, [0011]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20210265225 A1), and further in view of the obviousness of range optimization.
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches the device of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the substrate (110, Fig 3) has a second sidewall (110L) dimension (110L-H; thickness of 110) … .
Jang teaches a second sidewall (110L) dimension (110L-H; thickness of 110) … equal (resin 111 (main portion of 110) thickness of 0.1 mm, [0025]), but fails to explicitly teach the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters (mm).
However, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. The specification is silent to the criticality of the thickness of the second sidewall of the substrate. [Pg 4, Ln 30 - Pg 5, Ln 2] states the second sidewall thickness 134 is less than the first sidewall dimension 132, having a thickness of less than or equal to 0.10 millimeters (mm), but there is not mention as to why this dimension is critical to the design.
[Pg 10, Ln 30 - Pg 11, Ln 3] goes on to state the device includes the first lead frame portion and the second lead frame portion have a first sidewall dimension of less than or equal to 0.20 millimeters (mm). The substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than or equal to 0.10 millimeters (mm). The molding compound has a dimension of the combination of the first sidewall, the second sidewall, and the third sidewall. The first die is a micro-electromechanical system. Again, the specification is silent to the criticality of the second sidewall dimension of the substrate.
As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Jang discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the substrate has a second sidewall dimension of less than 0.10 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20210265225 A1), in view of Guo (US 20110241187 A1), and further in view of Higgins (US 20140077349 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jang and Guo discloses the method of claim 17. Guo teaches singulating (singulation, [0024]).
Jang teaches the lead frame portions (160, Fig 3), the first side (160I), and the second side (160E).
The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the lead frame portions have an opening that separates and spaces the first side and the second side and wherein the singulating the portion of the lead frame portions, occurs through the opening to create a new external sidewall of the first and second-lead frame portions.
However, Higgins teaches wherein the lead frame portions have an opening (97e, Fig 9) that separates and spaces (shown separating and spacing) the first side and the second side and wherein the singulating the portion of the lead frame portions occurs through (shown occurring through with cutting device 90) the opening (97e) to create a new external sidewall (96FE: new external sidewall formed after singulation) of the lead frame portions.
Jang, Guo, and Higgins are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are from the same field of endeavor of component package devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Jang and Guo with the features of Higgins to create wherein the lead frame portions have an opening that separates and spaces the first side and the second side and wherein the singulating the portion of the lead frame portions, occurs through the opening to create a new external sidewall of the first and second-lead frame portions thereby increasing throughput and extending saw blade life (Higgins, [0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su (US 20110316130 A1) - Lead frame thicker than component.
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 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 Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm EST.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897