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 1-17, and species B, drawn to Figs. 4 and 5A-5D, in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 are added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11699667 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US 11699667 teaches a method, comprising:
forming a die pad of a leadframe (lines 2-5 of claim 1 of US 11699667); and
forming a plurality of first flanges (lines 5-9 of claim 1 of US 11699667) along a first edge of the die pad, forming the plurality of first flanges including: spacing adjacent ones of the plurality of first flanges from each other separating each respective first flange of the plurality of first flanges from each other (lines 10-18 of claim 1 of US 11699667).
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 6-17 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.
Claim 6 recites “the lead frame” in line 2. There is no antecedent basis for the terminology in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the first surface of the lead frame” in line 3. There’s no antecedent basis for the claim terminology in the claim. Furthermore, claim 6 recites “a first surface of the leadframe” in line 6-7. It is unclear whether the first surface of the lead frame in line 3 is the same or different than the instant in line 6-7. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted to be the same.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carter et al. (US 5594234).
Regarding claim 1, Carter teaches a method (method of forming the leadframe in Figs. 1-3 of Carter), comprising:
forming a die pad (12) of a leadframe (10); and
forming a plurality of first flanges (leads 11a-11c) along a first edge (lower edge of 12 as shown in Fig. 1) of the die pad, forming the plurality of first flanges including: spacing adjacent ones of the plurality of first flanges from each other separating each respective first flange of the plurality of first flanges from each other (as shown in Fig. 1 of Carter, the leads 11a-11c are separated from one another, so the step of separating is implicit).
Regarding claim 2, Carter teaches all limitations of the method of claim 1, and further comprising:
forming a plurality of second flanges (leads 11d-11f in Fig. 1 of Carter) at a second edge of the die pad opposite to the first edge, forming the plurality of second flanges including:
spacing adjacent ones of the plurality of second flanges from each other separating each respective second flange of the plurality of second flanges from each other (as shown in Fig. 1 of Carter, the leads 11d-11f are separated from one another, so the step of separating is implicit).
Regarding claim 4, Carter teaches all limitations of the method of claim 1, and further comprising:
forming a plurality of second flanges (leads 11 on either left or right edge of the pad 12 shown in Fig. 1 of Carter) at a second edge (either left or right edge of the pad 12) of the die pad transverse (as defined) to the first edge of the die pad, forming the plurality of second flanges including:
spacing adjacent ones of the plurality of second flanges from each other separating each respective second flange of the plurality of second flanges from each other (as shown in Fig. 1 of Carter, the leads 11d-11f are separated from one another, so the step of separating is implicit).
Claims 6-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ong (US 2006/0180904 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ong teaches a method (method of forming the leadframe in Fig. 1 of Ong), comprising:
forming a die pad (recessed die paddle 132) with a first thickness (thickness of paddle 114) by removing a first portion (portion of lead frame removed by the etching to form recessed paddle 132) from the leadframe at and along the first surface of the lead frame (as described in [0029] & [0033], the recessed paddle 132 of the die paddle 114 is formed by etching the top surface of the lead frame);
forming a plurality of flanges (inner leads 104) with a second thickness (thickness of 104) greater than the first thickness and at one or more outermost edges of the die pad (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ong) by removing one or more second portions (portion of lead frame between the inner leads 104 that are etched away to form the inner leads 104) spaced apart from the first portion of the leadframe at and along a first surface of the leadframe (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ong) and spaced outward from a center of the die pad (as shown in Figs. 8-10 of Ong); and
forming one or more leads (the differential height leads 102) of the leadframe by removing one or more third portions (as described in [0033] of Ong) from the leadframe at and along a second surface (bottom surface 120 of lead frame) of the leadframe opposite to the first surface of the leadframe.
Regarding claim 7, Ong teaches all limitations of the method of claim 6, and also teaches wherein forming the die pad and the plurality of flanges further includes:
forming one or more first flanges of the plurality of flanges at a first outermost edge of the one or more outermost edges of the die pad (as shown in Figs. 8-10, the leads are at the four edges of the die paddle. The first outermost edge is defined to be the left edge shown in Fig. 1 of Ong); and
forming one or more second flanges (inner leads 104 at one of the other three edges of the die paddle 132. For example, the inner leads 104 at the opposite edge, i.e. the right edge, of the die paddle 132 shown in Fig. 1 of Ong) of the plurality of flanges at a second outermost edge of the one or more outermost edges of the die pad.
Regarding claim 8, Ong teaches all limitations of the method of claim 7, and also teaches wherein:
forming the one or more first flanges includes forming only one first flange that extends a majority of the first outermost edge of the one or more outermost edges of the die pad (as defined in claim 7 above); and
forming the one or more second flanges includes forming only one second flange that extends a majority of the second outermost edge of the one or more outermost edges of the die pad (as defined in claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 9, Ong teaches all limitations of the method of claim 7, and also teaches wherein:
forming the one or more first flanges includes forming a plurality of first flanges that are separate and distinct from each other and spaced apart from each other (as shown in Figs. 8-10, the leads are separate and distinct from each other); and
forming the one or more second flanges includes forming a plurality of second flanges that are separate and distinct from each other and spaced apart from each other (as shown in Figs. 8-10, the leads are separate and distinct from each other).
Regarding claim 10, Ong teaches all limitations of the method of claim 6, and also teaches wherein respective third portions of the one or more third portions of leadframe are aligned with and overlapped by the respective second portions of the one or more second portions of the leadframe (as defined in claim 6 above, the portions between the inner leads 104 are aligned with the edges of and are above, hence overlapped, with the portion that is removed to form the paddle height 112).
Regarding claim 17, Ong teaches all limitations of the method of claim 6, and further comprising:
coupling a die (128 in Fig. 1 of Ong) to a mounting surface (122) of the die pad;
forming one or more bonding wires (142-144) coupling the die to the one or more leads;
forming a molding compound (115) on the die, the one or more bonding wires, the die pad, the plurality of flanges, and the one or more leads.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien et al. (US 2010/0258920 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Chien teaches a method (Figs. 1A-1I of Chien), comprising:
forming a die pad (122) of a leadframe (100 in Fig. 1I), the die pad having a first surface (top surface of 122) opposite a second surface (bottom surface of 122);
forming a plurality of anchoring posts (inner leads 130) on the first surface of the die pad and spaced along an outermost edge (left edge of die pad 122) of the die pad, each anchoring post including a first portion (top portion of 130) coupled to the die pad, a second portion (bottom portion of inner leads that is at the same level with the adhesive layer 140) including a second surface (bottom surface of 104), and a central portion (middle portion of inner leads 130) between the first and second portions; and
forming a molding compound (180 in Fig. 1I) surrounding each of the plurality of anchoring posts.
Regarding claim 22, Chien teaches all limitations of the method of claim 21, and also teaches wherein a thickness of the first portion and a thickness of the second portion are greater than a thickness of the central portion (as shown in Fig. 1I of Chien).
Regarding claim 23, Chien teaches all limitations of the method of claim 21, and also teaches wherein the second surface of each anchoring post is flat and planar (as shown in Fig. 1I of Chien).
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 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter, as applied above in claims 2 and 1, respectively, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 9773960 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Carter teaches all limitations of the method of claim 2, but does not teach wherein: separating each of the respective first flanges of the plurality of first flanges further includes forming respective first indentations of a plurality of first indentations between adjacent ones of the plurality of first flanges; and separating each of the respective second flanges of the plurality of second flanges further include forming respective second indentations of a plurality of second indentations between adjacent ones of the plurality of second flanges.
Oda teaches a method of forming a leadframe (Fig. 6 of Oda). The method includes: forming a first recess (32b in Fig. 6d) on a first surface (bottom surface of 31) of a metallic substrate (31); forming a second recess (33b) in a second surface (top surface of 31) of the metallic substrate, the second recess aligned with the first recess and cooperating with the first recess to separate the flange from the plurality of leads (see Fig. 6d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the leadframe using the etching process of Oda. Etching process has high resolution that enables smaller features to be made on the leadframe.
Regarding claim 5, Carter teaches all limitations of the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein separating each of the respective first flanges of the plurality of first flanges further includes forming respective first indentations of a plurality of first indentations between adjacent ones of the plurality of first flanges.
Oda teaches a method of forming a leadframe (Fig. 6 of Oda). The method includes: forming a first recess (32b in Fig. 6d) on a first surface (bottom surface of 31) of a metallic substrate (31); forming a second recess (33b) in a second surface (top surface of 31) of the metallic substrate, the second recess aligned with the first recess and cooperating with the first recess to separate the flange from the plurality of leads (see Fig. 6d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the leadframe using the etching process of Oda. Etching process has high resolution that enables smaller features to be made on the leadframe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach a method of forming a leadframe comprising: “positioning one or more end surfaces of the plurality of flanges at an angle transverse to a mounting surface of the die pad by bending the leadframe” along with other limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach a method of forming a leadframe comprising: “wherein forming the die pad and the forming the plurality of flanges occurs simultaneously” along with other limitations of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0406. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-9am, 10am-6pm 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/Tuan A Hoang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights