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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/ Restrictions
Applicant's election of group I without traverse: claims 1-15, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 06/04/2026”, withdrawal of non-elected claim(s) 16-20 is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 1-20, in “Claims - 01/18/2024”, pending for prosecution, of which claim(s) 16-20 is/are withdrawn.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Strycker et al. (US 20150147586 A1 - hereinafter De Strycker) in view of Chen et al. (US 20240404924 A1 - hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 1, De Strycker teaches a method (see the entire document; Fig. 1 along with Figs. 1-5; specifically, [0010]-[0066], and as cited below), comprising:
providing a substrate (3 – Fig. 1 – [0066]); and
immersing the substrate (3) in a liquid metal ion solution (2 – see also the Abstract - “an ionic liquid containing metal ions”) to chemically displace metal ions from exposed surfaces on the substrate (“move metal ions that are removed from the substrate during pretreatment away from the substrate” – [0012]), wherein ions from the liquid metal ion solution combine with the displaced metal ions from the substrate to form an immersion plating layer on exposed surfaces of the substrate (“the metal ions of the first metallic element being incorporated in the transition layer, together with metal ions of the second element that originate from the ionic liquid” – [0010], “to make sure that a sufficient amount of ions of the second metallic element are provided to the surface of the substrate for being incorporated into the transition layer or the coating” – [0018]).
But De Strycker as applied above does not expressly disclose an electronic device having a substrate and a die disposed on the substrate.
However, it is well known in the art to have an electronic device having a substrate and a die disposed on the substrate as is also taught by Chen (Chen – Fig. 1 shows a die pad 201 (substrate) on which a die 10 is disposed – [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of an electronic device having a substrate and a die disposed on the substrate as taught by Chen into De Strycker for the obvious benefit of post processing substrate in an IC package as is well known.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Strycker et al. in view of Chen and in further view of Earle et al. (US 20110144079 A1 – hereinafter Earle).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of De Strycker and Chen teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the liquid metal ion solution is a tin ion solution.
However, it is well known in the art to have liquid metal ion comprising tin as is also taught by Earle (Earle – “the ionic liquid may comprise a metal ion selected from silver, copper, tin and zinc ions.” – [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming a liquid metal ion comprising tin as taught by Earle into the combination of De Strycker and Chen.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Earle structure into De Strycker and Chen structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of forming immersion plating using a metal of choice any specific application.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Strycker et al. in view of Chen and in further view of Arnd et al. (US 20120148733 A1 – hereinafter Arnd).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of De Strycker and Chen teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the immersion plating layer is comprised of tin.
It is well known in the art to use tin as the immersion plating layer as is also taught by Arnd (Arnd – “immersion plated layer of tin or a tin alloy 104, i.e.” – [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the immersion plating layer is comprised of tin as taught by Arnd into the combination of De Strycker and Chen.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Arnd structure into De Strycker and Chen structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of using a well-known metal for immersion plating known for its excellent solderability.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of De Strycker, Chen and Arnd teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the immersion plating layer is approximately 2-4um (Arnd – [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a die pad and conductive terminals and wherein the immersion plating layer is formed on exposed surfaces of the conductive terminals.
Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 9-15 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 9, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20150147586 A1 to De Strycker (US 20240404924 A1 to Chen) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 9 as indicated in the rejections of claim 1, but not the limitations of “providing a leadframe having a die pad and conductive terminals; placing a die on the die pad via a die attach material; attaching wire bonds from an active surface of the die to the conductive terminals; forming a mold compound over the die, the mold compound covering all but two surfaces of the leadframe, where the two surfaces not covered face away from the die and are substantially perpendicular to each other” as recited in claim 9. Therefore, the claim 9 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 10-15, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights