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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III directed to Figs. 7 and 8 (claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13 and 15) in the reply filed on April 13th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching all distinct species I-IV would not be serious burden as a search of product of Species III would encompass Species I-II and IV. This is not found persuasive because even though Species I-IV has some common features as stated by the Applicants, one search of Species III would not encompass for all other species. Furthermore, these Species also have differences in structure and configurations as stated in the Examiners’ restriction requirement and these differences requires different field of search including different keyword search and different search queries which would create burden on the Examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 5, 11-12, 14 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the uncovered surface part” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-2 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and therefore having the above issue incorporated into the claims.
Claim 4 recites a redundant “a semiconductor device” in line 1 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor device” in line 1.
Claim 4 recites a redundant “a semiconductor chip” in line 3 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor chip” in line 4.
Claim 4 recites a redundant “a mold” in line 7 because claim 1 already recite “a mold” in line 6.
Claim 6 recites a redundant “a semiconductor device” in line 1 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor device” in line 1.
Claim 6 recites a redundant “a semiconductor chip” in line 3 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor chip” in line 4.
Claim 6 recites a redundant “a mold” in line 7 because claim 1 already recite “a mold” in line 6.
Claim 7 recites a redundant “a semiconductor device” in line 1 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor device” in line 1.
Claim 7 recites a redundant “a semiconductor chip” in line 3 because claim 1 already recite “a semiconductor chip” in line 4.
Claim 7 recites a redundant “a mold” in line 7 because claim 1 already recite “a mold” in line 6.
Claims 8-10, 13 and 15 are rejected for being depending on claim 4 and therefore having the above issue incorporating into the claims.
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, 6-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daryl Wee et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0273813 A1), hereinafter as Daryl Wee.
Regarding claim 1, Daryl Wee discloses a semiconductor device in Fig. 1B comprising: a lead frame (substrate 132 as lead frame), wherein the lead frame comprises a first frame surface (bottom surface of die pad 134) and a second frame surface (top surface of die pad 134) opposite the first frame surface (see [0030]); a semiconductor chip (die 108), wherein the semiconductor chip comprises a first chip surface (bottom surface of die 108) and a second chip surface (top surface of die 108) opposite the first chip surface (see [0028]); a mold (mold material 118) (see [0031]); and at least one adhesion promoter (dendrite 114) (see [0031]); wherein the first frame surface of the lead frame is an outer surface of the semiconductor device (see Fig. 1B), and wherein the second frame surface of the lead frame is attached to the first chip surface of the semiconductor chip so that the second frame surface of the lead frame is partially covered by the first chip surface of the semiconductor chip (center portion of top surface of die pad 134 attached to bottom surface of die 108 through attachment material 110) (see [0031]); wherein the at least one adhesion promoter (dendrite 114) is on the uncovered surface part of the second frame surface of the lead frame (surface of die pad 134 at the roughening features 112), so that an uncovered surface part of the second frame surface of the lead frame and the second chip side of the semiconductor chip are in direct or indirect contact with the mold via the at least one adhesion promoter (see Fig. 1B and [0030-0031]); and wherein each of the at least one adhesion promoters enhances adhesion between the mold, and either the second frame surface of the lead frame or the second chip surface of the semiconductor chip (see [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Daryl Wee discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one adhesion promoter comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide dendrite coating (Zn/Cr oxide to form A2 dendrite).
Regarding claim 4, Daryl Wee discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device according to claim 1, comprising steps of: a) providing a semiconductor chip mounted to the lead frame (see Fig. 5A and [0048]); b) applying, after step a), the at least one adhesion promoter (dendrite 114) on the uncovered surface part of the second frame surface of the lead frame and/or on the second chip surface of the semiconductor chip (see Figs. 5B-5D and [0049-0050]); c) encapsulating the lead frame and the semiconductor chip in a mold (mold 118) so that the first frame surface of the lead frame forms an outer surface of the semiconductor device (see Fig. 5E and [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Daryl Wee discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device according to claim 2, comprising steps of: a) providing a semiconductor chip mounted to the lead frame (see Fig. 5A and [0048]); b) applying, after step a), the at least one adhesion promoter (dendrite 114) on the uncovered surface part of the second frame surface of the lead frame and/or on the second chip surface of the semiconductor chip (see Figs. 5B-5D and [0049-0050]); c) encapsulating the lead frame and the semiconductor chip in a mold (mold 118) so that the first frame surface of the lead frame forms an outer surface of the semiconductor device (see Fig. 5E and [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Daryl Wee discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device according to claim 3, comprising steps of: a) providing a semiconductor chip mounted to the lead frame (see Fig. 5A and [0048]); b) applying, after step a), the at least one adhesion promoter (dendrite 114) on the uncovered surface part of the second frame surface of the lead frame and/or on the second chip surface of the semiconductor chip (see Figs. 5B-5D and [0049-0050]); c) encapsulating the lead frame and the semiconductor chip in a mold (mold 118) so that the first frame surface of the lead frame forms an outer surface of the semiconductor device (see Fig. 5E and [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Daryl Wee discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device according to claim 4, Daryl Wee fails to disclose wherein the application of the adhesion promoter during the step b) is performed by spraying.
However, it should be known that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since claim 3 is directed to a device, the method of forming the adhesion promoter is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation of “…formed by spraying” stated in claim 8 has not been given any patentable weight. MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claim 9, Daryl Wee discloses the method according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein, for each application of a different one of the at least one adhesion promoter, a mask is used to ensure application of the adhesion promoter on desired surfaces only.
However, it should be known that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since claim 1 is directed to a device, the method of forming the adhesion promoter is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation of “…for each application of a different one of the at least one adhesion promoter, a mask is used to ensure application of the adhesion promoter on desired surfaces only” stated in claim 9 has not been given any patentable weight. MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claim 10, Daryl Wee discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the at least one adhesion promoter comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide dendrite coating (Zn/Cr oxide to form A2 dendrite).
Regarding claim 13, Daryl Wee discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the at least one adhesion promoter comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide dendrite coating (Zn/Cr oxide to form A2 dendrite).
Regarding claim 15, Daryl Wee discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the at least one adhesion promoter comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide dendrite coating (Zn/Cr oxide to form A2 dendrite).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights