Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/398,090

SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
WRIGHT, TUCKER J
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Jmj Korea Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
718 granted / 908 resolved
+11.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
943
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
44.7%
+4.7% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 908 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2 and 8 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. C laim 2 recites “ wherein the second substrate is … bonded to the upper surface of the lower surface of the first substrate ” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the second substrate can be bonded to the upper surface of the lower surface of the first substrate . In the interest of compact prosecution the above recitation will be interpreted as “wherein the second substrate is…bonded to the upper surface of the first substrate . ” Claim 8 recites the limitation " the bonded surface of the first terminal structurally bonded to the surface of the lead frame pad is formed of a metal material containing 50% or more of Cu or Al components compared with the total weight ." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution the above recitation will be interpreted as “ the first terminal is formed of a metal material containing 50% or more of Cu or Al components compared with the total weight .” 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)(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. Claim s 1-2, 4, 6- 7, 13-14, 16 -17 , and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) . Regarding claim 1, in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses a semiconductor package comprising: a lead frame pad comprising at least one first substrate (4, paragraph [0056]) and at least one second substrate (2, paragraph [0057]) structurally bonded to one surface (top) of the first substrate; at least one semiconductor chip (at least one of Tr1-Tr4, paragraph [0051]) bonded onto the second substrate by using a conductive adhesive (15, paragraph [0057]) ; a lead frame lead comprising at least one first terminal (e.g. P1) structurally or electrically connected to the lead frame pad and at least one second terminal (e.g. out1) spaced apart from the lead frame pad by a regular distance; an electrical connection member (10, paragraph [0055]) electrically connecting the semiconductor chip with the second terminal (see FIG. 2) ; and a housing (3, paragraph [0060]) partially or entirely covering the semiconductor chip and the lead frame pad, wherein the lead frame lead is exposed and extended to the outside of the housing and the thickness of the second substrate is less than the thickness of the first substrate (e.g., see FIG. 3) . Regarding claim 2, in FIGs. 2-5, insofar as understood, Hayashi discloses that the second substrate is bonded to the upper surface of the first substrate. Regarding claim 4, in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses that a horizontal area of the second substrate is smaller than or same as a horizontal area of the first substrate (e.g. see FIG. 2) . Regarding claim 6 , in FIG . 5, Hayashi discloses that the second substrate (2) is inserted into and bonded to the first substrate (4) and a difference of a height-level between the surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate is below 0.1 mm (substrates 2 and 4 are coplanar) . Regarding claim 7 , in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses that the first terminal is structurally connected to the second substrate. Regarding claim 13 , in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses that the second substrate is connected to the first terminal as one body formed of the same metal material. Regarding claim 14, in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses that the lead frame pad and the first terminal are structurally connected to each other by using a conductive bonding material (solder 15 and capacitor C6, see FIG. 5) . Regarding claim 1 6 , in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses a semiconductor package comprising: lead frame pad comprising at least one first substrate (4, paragraph [0056]) , at least one second substrate (2, paragraph [0057]) structurally bonded to one surface (top) of the first substrate, and at least one third substrate (11, paragraph [0060]) structurally bonded to the other surface (bottom) of the first substrate; at least one semiconductor chip (at least one of Tr1-Tr4, paragraph [0051]) bonded onto the second substrate by using a conductive adhesive (15, paragraph [0057]) ; a lead frame lead comprising at least one first terminal (e.g. P1) structurally or electrically connected to the lead frame pad and at least one second terminal (e.g. out1) spaced apart from the lead frame pad by a regular distance; an electrical connection member (10) electrically connecting the semiconductor chip with the second terminal; and a housing (3) partially or entirely covering the semiconductor chip and the lead frame pad, wherein the lead frame lead is exposed and extended to the outside of the housing and the thickness of the second substrate is less than the thickness of the first substrate. Regarding claim 17 , in FIG. 5, Hayashi discloses that the second substrate (2) is inserted into and bonded to the first substrate (4) . Regarding claim 19, in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package comprising: preparing a lead frame pad comprising at least one first substrate (4) and at least one second substrate (2) structurally bonded to one surface of the first substrate; installing at least one semiconductor chip (at least one of Tr1-Tr4, paragraph [0051]) onto the second substrate by using a conductive adhesive (15, paragraph [0057]) ; forming a lead frame lead in such a way that at least one first terminal (e.g. P1) is structurally or electrically connected to the lead frame pad and at least one second terminal (e.g. out1) is formed to be spaced apart from the lead frame pad by a regular distance; electrically connecting the semiconductor chip to the second terminal by using an electrical connection member (10) ; and forming a housing (3) to partially or entirely cover the semiconductor chip and the lead frame pad, wherein the lead frame lead is exposed and extended to the outside of the housing and the thickness of the second substrate is less than the thickness of the first substrate. Regarding claim 20 , in FIGs. 2-5, Hayashi discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor package comprising: preparing a lead frame pad comprising at least one first substrate (4) , at least one second substrate (2) structurally bonded to one surface of the first substrate, and at least one third substrate (11) structurally bonded to the other surface of the first substrate; installing at least one semiconductor chip (at least one of Tr1-Tr4, paragraph [0051]) onto the second substrate by using a conductive adhesive (15, paragraph [0057]) ; forming a lead frame lead in such a way that at least one first terminal (e.g. P1) is structurally or electrically connected to the lead frame pad and at least one second terminal (e.g. out1) is formed to be spaced apart from the lead frame pad by a regular distance; electrically connecting the semiconductor chip to the second terminal by using an electrical connection member (10) ; and forming a housing (3) to partially or entirely cover the semiconductor chip and the lead frame pad, wherein the lead frame lead is exposed and extended to the outside of the housing and the thickness of the second substrate is less than the thickness of the first substrate. 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. Claim s 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) . Regarding claim 3, Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the first substrate and the second substrate are formed of each different metal material or the same metal material. However, Examiner notes that it was notoriously well known to construct conductive substrates from metal at least to lower resistivity. Further , Examiner notes that when choosing materials for two distinct substrates, choosing the same material or a different material are the only choices available. As such, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. To lower resistivity, it 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 to form the substrates from a metal. Further, a ccording to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2143 I (E)) therefore it would have been "obvious to try" forming the first substrate and the second substrate each of different metal material or the same metal material . Regarding claim 18, Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the first substrate and the second substrate or the third substrate are formed of each different metal material or the same metal material. However, Examiner notes that it was notoriously well known to construct conductive substrates from metal at least to lower resistivity. Further, when choosing materials for two distinct substrates, choosing the same material or a different material are the only choices available. As such, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. To lower resistivity, it 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 to form the substrates from a metal. Further, a ccording to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2143 I (E)) therefore it would have been "obvious to try" forming the first substrate and the second substrate or the third substrate each of different metal material or the same metal material . Claim s 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) in view of Iwai (US Patent No. 4,065,625) . Regarding claim 5, Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the first substrate contains 50% or more of Al components compared to the total weight , or the second substrate contains 50% or more of Cu components compared to the total weight. The art however well recognized a lead frame (or “substrate”) comprising 50% or more of Al components compared to the total weight to be suitable for use as a substrate. See, for example, Iwai , claim 2 . According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Hayashi disclosed first substrate from and alloy comprising 50% or more of Al components compared to the total weight for its recognized suitability as a lead frame (or “ substrate ”) . Regarding claim 8, insofar as understood, Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the first terminal is formed of a metal material containing 50% or more of Cu or Al components compared with the total weight . The art however well recognized a lead frame (or “substrate”) comprising 50% or more of Al components compared to the total weight to be suitable for use as a substrate. See, for example, Iwai , claim 2. According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Hayashi disclosed first substrate from and alloy comprising 50% or more of Al components compared to the total weight for its recognized suitability as a lead frame (or “substrate”). In doing so, the first terminal is formed of a metal material containing 50% or more of Cu or Al components compared with the total weight . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) in view of Otremba (US Pub. No. 2016/0056092 ) . Regarding claim 9 , Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the first terminal has a stacked structure formed of at least two different metals. The art however well recognized a lead frame (or “substrate”) comprising a stacked structure formed of at least two different metals to be suitable for use as a lead frame . See, for example, Otremba , paragraph [0014] . According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Hayashi disclosed first lead frame (or “ substrate ”) from a stacked structure formed of at least two different metals for its recognized suitability as a lead frame (or “substrate”). In doing so, the first terminal has a stacked structure formed of at least two different metals . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) in view of Fukuzaki (US Pub. No. 2018/0197810 ) . Regarding claim 11 , Fukuzaki appears not to explicitly disclose that the first terminal is separated into a terminal A, a terminal B, and a terminal C which are combined to have a stacked structure. The art however well recognized a lead frame (or “substrate”) comprising a stacked structure formed of at least three different metals to be suitable for use as a lead frame. See, for example, Fukuzaki , paragraph [00 72 ]. According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Hayashi disclosed first lead frame (or “substrate”) a stacked structure formed of at least three different metals for its recognized suitability as a lead frame (or “substrate”). In doing so, the first terminal is separated into a terminal A, a terminal B, and a terminal C which are combined to have a stacked structure . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) in view of Kotaki (US Pub. No. 2006/0071335 ) . Regarding claim 12 , Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the surface of the at least one first terminal or the at least one second terminal included in the lead frame lead and exposed to the outside of the housing is plated with 50% or more of Sn components compared with the total weight to cover 80% or more of the exposed surface. The art however well recognized a surface of a first terminal exposed to the outside of a housing is plated with 50% or more of Sn components compared with the total weight to cover 80% or more of the exposed surface to be suitable for use as a terminal . See, for example, Kotaki , paragraph [00 36 ]. According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Hayashi disclosed first terminal such that it is plated with 50% or more of Sn components compared with the total weight to cover 80% or more of the exposed surface for its recognized suitability as a terminal. Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2011/0291236) in view of Suzuki (US P atent No. 3,778,887 ) . Regarding claim 1 5 , Hayashi appears not to explicitly disclose that the lead frame pad comprises a penetration hole to connect with a heat sink. However, in FIG. 1, Suzuki discloses a similar structure having a lead frame pad comprising a penetration hole to connect with a n external heat sink (col. 2, lines 22-25). To connect the lead frame pad to a an external heat sink it 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 to have formed the lead frame pad such that it comprises a penetration hole . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2012/0248592 discloses a lead frame (11) with an inlaid section (5). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3234 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Matthew Landau can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /TUCKER J WRIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604718
MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604544
SOLID-STATE IMAGING ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598756
PHASE CHANGE MATERIAL (PCM) SWITCH HAVING LOW HEATER RESISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588565
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING BONDING PADS AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585158
DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING AN OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 908 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month