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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Specie I (Fig. 1-2), claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17 and 19 in the reply filed on January 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the search and examination of Species I and II would be likely to be co-extensive and, in any event, would involve such interrelated art that the search and examination can be made without undue burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive. The restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction /election requirement, mailed on 11/12/2025, is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Non-elected invention and species, claims 8, 13 and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Action on merits of Species 1, claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17 and 19 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 15th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/15/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yandoc (US 2021/0296218, hereinafter as Yand ‘218) in view of Tay (US 2020/0273790, hereinafter as Tay ‘790).
Regarding Claim 1, Yand ‘218 teaches a lead frame (241; [0042]) for connecting a semiconductor die (HEMT die; [0042]) to a base plate (see para. [0049]), the lead frame (241) comprising:
one or more lead portions (pillars (209); [0045]) to connect the lead frame (source clip (204); [0045]) to the base plate (die pad (243); [0043]);
a first contact element (source clip (204); [0045]) to connect to a source (203; [0043]) of the semiconductor die (201; [0043]);
a second contact element (drain clip (228); [0042]) to connect to a drain (227; [0042]) of the semiconductor die (221; [0042]).
Thus, Yand ‘218 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second contact element comprises at least two contact portions that in an assembled state of the lead frame each contact the drain of the semiconductor die with a contact area thereof, and wherein the contact areas of the respective contact portions are spaced apart from each other”.
Tay ‘790 teaches the second contact element comprises at least two contact portions (114; [0043]) that in an assembled state of the lead frame each contact the drain of the semiconductor die (110; [0045]) with a contact area thereof, and wherein the contact areas of the respective contact portions are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 1B and 1C; [0045]-[0047]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify by having the second contact element comprises at least two contact portions that in an assembled state of the lead frame each contact the drain of the semiconductor die with a contact area thereof, and wherein the contact areas of the respective contact portions are spaced apart from each other for the purpose of improving contact structure for power semiconductor packages (see para. [0002]) as suggested by Tay ‘790.
Regarding Claim 2, Yand ‘218 teaches the lead frame (Fig. 5, (241); [0042]) is made as a single component.
Regarding Claim 3, Tay ‘790 teaches the connection between the second contact element and the semiconductor die is formed by a soldered connection between the contact areas of each of the contact portions and the drain of the semiconductor die (see para. [0055]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Tay ‘790 teaches at least one of the contact portions (114; [0043]) of the second contact element comprises an outgassing hole (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Yand ‘218 and Tay ‘790 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “at least one of the contact portions of the second contact element has a width that is smaller than 0.4 mm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a width of the contact portions of the second contact element is smaller than 0.4 mm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a width of the contact portions of the second contact element is smaller than 0.4 mm in order to improve the performance of the lead frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Tay ‘790 teaches the at least two contact portions (114; [0043]) of the second contact element are arranged parallel to each other, with a slit in between two neighboring contact portions (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 7, Yand ‘218 and Tay ‘790 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the slit has a width that is smaller than a width of the contact portion, and wherein between the width of the slit and the width of the contact portion is a ratio of between 0.1 and 0.3”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the slit has a width that is smaller than a width of the contact portion, and wherein between the width of the slit and the width of the contact portion is a ratio of between 0.1 and 0.3 on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a width of the slit is smaller than a width of the contact portion, and wherein between the width of the slit and the width of the contact portion is a ratio of between 0.1 and 0.3 in order to improve the performance of the lead frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Tay ‘790 teaches the lead frame is made of a material that comprises copper (see para. [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yand ‘218 teaches the first and second contact element are mutually spaced apart in an assembled state of the lead frame (see Fig. 3F).
Regarding Claim 11, Tay ‘790 teaches the second contact element (114; [0043]) comprises a discrete number of individual contact portions (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 12, Yand ‘218 teaches at least two contact portions (204; [0043]) that in an assembled state of the lead frame each contact the source of the semiconductor die with a contact area thereof, and wherein the contact areas of the respective contact portions are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3f).
Regarding Claim 14, Yand ‘218 teaches the connection between the second contact element (228) and the semiconductor die (221) is formed by a soldered connection between the contact areas of each of the contact portions and the drain of the semiconductor die (see Fig. 3a-3g; [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yand ‘218 teaches the second contact element comprises between 2 and 10 individual contact portions (Fig. 3e, (228); [0052]).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select he second contact element comprises between 2 and 10 individual contact portions on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select he second contact element comprises between 2 and 10 individual contact portions in order to improve the performance of the lead frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Otremba et al. (US 2015/0041984 A1)
Bhalla et al. (US 2011/0024917 A1)
Muto et al. (US 2009/0218676 A1)
Madrid et al. (US 2004/0063240 A1)
Kuo (US 2001/0044167 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893