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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 15-20, drawn to product, in the reply filled on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation: “a die of the plurality of dies being attached to each die pad of the plurality of die pads”. Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 show a plurality of dies, each die being attached to a single die pad and do not show a die attached to multiple die pads. Furthermore, no other parts of the specification appear to include a written description of how this limitation is implemented as part of the invention. Therefore, a person skilled in the art, at the time the application was filed, would have not recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed, in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.
Claims 16-20 are also rejected as being depended on claim 15.
For the purpose of examination claim 15 will be interpreted as: A multi-chip integrated circuit comprising: a leadframe having a plurality of die pads, inner leads, and outer leads; a plurality of dies, a die of the plurality of dies being attached to a die pad of the plurality of die pads, the plurality of dies having an active side; lead locks disposed adjacent to the inner leads, the lead locks having a side support disposed on each side of the inner leads and an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads; wire bonds attached from the active side of each of the plurality of dies to the inner leads; and a mold compound encapsulating the plurality of dies, the inner leads, the lead locks, and the wire bonds.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over disclosed prior art, Fauzi et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0206770 A1) hereinafter referenced as Fauzi, in view of Takada, (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP 2008198718 A) hereinafter referenced Takada, and in view of Somma et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2019/0287880 A1) hereinafter referenced as Somma.
Regarding claim 1, Fauzi teaches an electronic device comprising: a leadframe (Fig.1) having at least one die pad (Fig.3, element #302), inner leads, and outer leads (Fig.3, elements #314 form inner leads, and elements #316 and #318 form outer leads); at least one die attached to the at least one die pad the at least one die including an active side (Fig.3, element #322 is an IC chip, IC chips include active surfaces); lead locks disposed adjacent to the inner leads, the lead locks having a side support disposed on each side of the inner leads (Fig.13, elements #1366 and #1360 form a side support on one side of inner lead, element #1314, and elements #1370 and #1368 form a side support on the other side of inner lead, element #1314).
Fauzi does not teach an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads.
Takada teaches an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads (Fig.2A, there is an opening between side supports formed by elements #30 and #30A and the inner lead, element #26). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Takada and disclose an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads. As disclosed by Takada, this results in a hook portion projecting in a thickness direction of the lead frame, which prevents the mold resin from peeling off (paragraph [0006]).
Fauzi further teaches wire bonds attached from a side of the at least one die to the inner leads (Fig.3, elements #328, #330, #326, #324); and a mold compound encapsulating the at least one die, the inner leads, the lead locks, and the wire bonds (Fig.3, element #332, paragraph [0028], rows 10-16 and paragraph [0049], rows 1-5). Fauzi does not teach the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the at least one die. Somma teaches the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the at least one die (Fig.1A, wired bonds, element #46 are attached from the active side of the die, element #42, paragraph [0007], rows 7-12). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Somma and disclose the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the at least one die. A “die up” arrangement offers easier testing and rework accessibility, and in some cases simplifies thermal management.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the inner leads include a cross bar integrated with a first end of the inner leads, the inner leads and the cross bar forming a T-shape (Fig.13, the end of the inner leads located near the die include a cross bar, element #1312, element #1314 and #1312 for a T-shape).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claims 1 and 2 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein each side support includes a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the cross bar of the inner leads (Fig.13, the first end of elements #1366 and #1370 is connected to element #1312).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein each side support of the lead locks to form a recess between the first end and the second end of each side support (Fig.13, element #1360 and the corresponding one on the other side of the inner lead). We note that the limitation “each side support of the lead locks are partially etched to form a recess” is treated as a product by process, and as such only the structure is required to meet the limitations (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein each side support is substantially parallel with the inner leads (Fig.13, the side supports are parallel with the side portions of element #1314, adjacent to the side supports).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a width of each side support is less than a width of the outer leads (Fig.13, the width of the side supports formed by elements #1366, #1360, #1370 and #1368, in a direction parallel to the longer side of element #1312, is less than the width of the outer lead, formed by elements of the lead other than element #1312 and #1314, in the same direction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauzi in view of Takada, Somma and in view of Kim, (United States Patent Number, US 6,664,614 B2) hereinafter referenced as Kim.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claims 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi teaches that the side supports are embedded in the mold compound. The combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma does not teach the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed. Kim teaches the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed (Fig.7A, the second ends, ends towards the outside of the package, are flush with the molding and exposed). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings Kim and disclose the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed. As disclosed by Kim, this allows the side supports to be electrically connected to circuit boards or other devices.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauzi in view of Takada, Somma and in view of in view of Chien et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2021/0020549 A1) hereinafter referenced as Chien.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma does not teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one die pad is a first die pad and the at least one die is a first die, the electronic device further including a second die pad and a second die attached to the second die pad. Chien teaches wherein the at least one die pad is a first die pad and the at least one die is a first die, the electronic device further including a second die pad and a second die attached to the second die pad (Fig.2A, dies elements #91 and #97 are each disposed of a separate die pad, elements #80). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chien and disclose wherein the at least one die pad is a first die pad and the at least one die is a first die, the electronic device further including a second die pad and a second die attached to the second die pad. As disclosed by Chien, using multiple dies disposed on multiple dies pads allows the manufacture of circuits where each die transmits power at different levels (paragraph [0002], rows 7-8 and 13-17), which can be used in transformers or power converters.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Somma teaches the electronic device of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Fauzi, Takada and Chien teaches the electronic device of claim 8 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and. Fauzi teaches the die is attached to the die pad (paragraph [0028], rows 4-5). The combination of Fauzia and Takada does not teach the die is attached to the die pad using a die attached material. Chien teaches the dies are attached to the die pads using an adhesive, which is a die attach material (paragraph [0023], rows 1-2). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings Chien and disclose wherein the first die and the second die are attached to the first die pad and the second die pad via a die attach material. Attaching the dies to die pads using die attached materials ensures secure connections and provides mechanical stability of the integrated circuit.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauzi in view of Chien and in view of Takada.
Regarding claim 15, Fauzi teaches an integrated circuit comprising: a lead frame having a die pad (Fig.3, dies pad, element #302), inner leads, and outer leads (Fig.3, elements #314 form inner leads and elements #316 and #318 form outer leads); a die being attached to a die pad (Fig.3, element #322 is attached to the die pad, element #302, paragraph [0028], rows 4-5).
Fauzi does not teach the integrated circuit is a multi-chip integrated circuit comprising: a lead frame having a plurality of die pads, a plurality of dies, a die of the plurality of dies being attached to a die pad of the plurality of die pads, the plurality of dies having an active side.
Chien teaches the integrated circuit is a multi-chip integrated circuit comprising: a lead frame having a plurality of die pads, a plurality of dies, a die of the plurality of dies being attached to circuit comprises a lead frame having a plurality of die pads, element #80, a plurality of dies, elements #91 through #97, which are disposed on die pads, elements #80, dies have an active surface).It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chien and disclose the integrated circuit is a multi-chip integrated circuit comprising: a lead frame having a plurality of die pads, a plurality of dies, a die of the plurality of dies being attached to a die pad of the plurality of die pads, the plurality of dies having an active side. As disclosed by Chien, using multiple dies disposed on dies pads allows the manufacture of circuits where each die transmits power at different levels (paragraph [0002], rows 7-8 and 13-17), which can be used in transformers or power converters.
Fauzi further teaches lead locks disposed adjacent to the inner leads, the lead locks having a side support disposed on each side of the inner leads (Fig.13, elements #1366 and #1360 form a side support on one side of inner lead, element #1314, and elements #1370 and #1368 form a side support on the other side of inner lead, element #1314)
Fauzi does not teach an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads. Takada teaches an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads (Fig.2A, there is an opening between side supports formed by elements #30 and #30A and the inner lead, element #26). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Takada and disclose an opening defined between each side support and the inner leads. As disclosed by Takada, this results in a hook portion projecting in a thickness direction of the lead frame which prevents the mold resin from peeling off (paragraph [0006]).
Fauzi further teaches wire bonds attached from a side of the die to the inner leads (Fig.3, elements #328, #330, #326, #324); and a mold compound encapsulating the plurality of dies, the inner leads, the lead locks, and the wire bonds (Fig.3, element #332, paragraph [0028], rows 10-16 and paragraph [0049], rows 1-5). Chien further teaches wire bonds attached from a side of the each of the plurality of dies to the inner leads (Fig.2A). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chien and disclose wire bonds attached from a side of the each of the plurality of dies. The wires allow for the power and signals to be transmitted from the lead frame to the dies and/or from the dies to the lead frame, enabling the functionality of the integrated circuit.
The combination of Fauzi, Chien and Takada does not each teach the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the dies. Somma teaches the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the die (Fig.1A, wired bonds, element #46 are attached from the active side of the die, element #42, paragraph [0007], rows 7-12). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Somma and disclose the wire bonds are attached from the active side of the die. A “die up” arrangement offers easier testing and rework accessibility, and in some cases simplifies thermal management.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 15 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 15, wherein the inner leads include a cross bar integrated with a first end of the inner leads, the inner leads and cross bar forming a T-shape (Fig.13, the end of the inner leads located near the die include a cross bar, element #1312, element #1314 and #1312 for a T-shape).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claims 15 and 16 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 16, wherein each side support includes a first end and a second end, the first end being connected to the cross bar of the inner leads (Fig.13, the first end of elements #1366 and #1370 is connected to element #1312).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claims 15, 16 and 17 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 17, wherein each side support of the lead locks form a recess between the first end and the second end of each side support (Fig.13, element #1360 and the corresponding one on the other side of the inner lead). We note that the limitation “each side support of the lead locks are partially etched to form a recess” is treated as a product by process, and as such only the structure is required to meet the limitations (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 15 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi further teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claim 15, wherein each side support is substantially parallel with the inner leads (Fig.13, the side supports are parallel with the side portions of element #1314, adjacent to the side supports).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauzi in view of Chien, Takada, Somma and in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma teaches the multi-chip integrated circuit of claims 15, 16 and 17 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Fauzi teaches that the side supports are embedded in the mold compound. The combination of Fauzi, Chien, Takada and Somma does not teach the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed. Kim teaches the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed (Fig.7A, the second end, ends towards the outside of the package, is flush with the molding and exposed). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings Kim and disclose the second end of each side support is substantially flush with the mold compound and is thereby exposed. As disclosed by Kim, this allows the side supports to be electrically connected to circuit boards or other devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Dale Page can be reached on (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899