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 without traverse of method claims in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 21-25 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.
The claimed limitation of as recited in claim 9, is unclear as to the structural relationship between the molding material and the claimed semiconductor die and the lead frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 9-13 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (12,272,637) in view of Carson et al. (10,535,611) and Shibuya et al. (2019/0206768).
Regarding claims 9, 26 and 32, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text a method, comprising:
coupling a semiconductor die 320 to a substrate 306 (See figure 3Z);
coupling a lead frame 430b to at least one of the semiconductor die 402 or the substrate 404 (see figure 4); and
forming a molding material 328 (see figure 3Z) having an elongated protrusion (the top vertical protrusion) and a notch (i.e. a trench, see figure 3M), the elongated protrusion being aligned along a longitudinal axis, and the notch facing in a direction away from the longitudinal axis.
Liao et al. do not explicitly state that element 430b is a lead frame and that molding material 328 having an elongated protrusion and a notch, wherein the elongated protrusion being aligned along a longitudinal axis, and the notch facing in a direction away from the longitudinal axis.
Carson et al. teach in figure 4 and related text a molding material 140 having an elongated protrusion and a notch, wherein the elongated protrusion being aligned along a longitudinal axis, and the notch facing in a direction away from the longitudinal axis.
Shibuya et al. teach in figure 13 and related text a lead frame 1300.
Liao et al., Carson et al. and Shibuya et al. are analogous art because they are directed to packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Liao et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use element 430b as a lead frame, as taught by Shibuya et al., and to form molding material 328 as having an elongated protrusion and a notch, wherein the elongated protrusion being aligned along a longitudinal axis, and the notch facing in a direction away from the longitudinal axis, as taught by Carson et al., in Liao et al.’s device, in order to provide external connections to the device and in order to improve the device characteristics.
Regarding claim 10, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the semiconductor die is coupled to the substrate via a printed solder (not shown).
Regarding claim 11, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the lead frame is coupled to the semiconductor die via interconnects 122, 1244 or a wirebond (not shown).
Regarding claim 12, Liao et al. do not teach that the molding material is formed using a transfer molding process.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the molding material using a transfer molding process, in Liao et al.’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device.
Regarding claim 13, in the combined device, Shibuya et al. teach in figure 14 and related text trimming the lead frame 1104 to define a plurality of leads 1110 extending from the molding material 1300 along a first direction, the elongated protrusion being aligned along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the notch being disposed between a pair of the plurality of leads.
Regarding claim 21, in the combined device, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text forming the molding material 328 (see figure 3Z) includes defining a trench (can be defined as a notch see figure 3M) disposed between the elongated protrusion and a conductive surface of the substrate that is exposed through the molding material.
Regarding claim 22, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that forming the trench is aligned along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 23, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the elongated protrusion and a trench collectively define at least a portion of a lead-substrate creepage distance.
Regarding claim 24, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the notch has a surface that defines at least a portion of a lead-lead creepage distance.
Regarding claim 25, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the notch is disposed between a pair of extensions made from the molding material.
Regarding claim 26, Liao et al., Carson et al. and Shibuya et al. teach substantially the entire claims structure, as recited above, including coupling a semiconductor die to a substrate; coupling a lead frame to at least one of the semiconductor die or the substrate, the lead frame including at least a first lead and a second lead extending in a first direction; and forming a molding material around at least a portion of the semiconductor die and at least a portion of the lead frame, the molding material defining a trench and a notch (see figure 3M of Liao et al., figure 14 of Shibuya et al. and figure 4 of Carson et al.), the trench being aligned along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the notch being disposed between the first lead and the second lead (see figure 14 of Shibuya et al.)
Regarding claim 27, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the molding material defines an elongated protrusion disposed between the trench and notch.
Regarding claim 28, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the trench and the elongated protrusion collectively define at least a portion of a lead-substrate creepage distance.
Regarding claim 29, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the trench is aligned along the second direction.
Regarding claim 30, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the notch is disposed between a pair of extensions made from the molding material.
Regarding claim 31, in the combined device, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the molding material is formed using a transfer molding process that defines the trench and the notch.
Regarding claim 32, Liao et al., Carson et al. and Shibuya et al. teach substantially the entire claims structure, as recited above, including coupling a semiconductor die to a substrate; coupling a lead frame to at least one of the semiconductor die or the substrate, the lead frame including at least a first lead and a second lead extending in a first direction; and forming a molding material around at least a portion of the semiconductor die and at least a portion of the lead frame such that the molding material defining an elongated protrusion and a trench between the elongated protrusion and the surface of the substrate, the elongated protrusion and the trench being aligned along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
Prior art does not explicitly state that a surface of the substrate is exposed through the molding material.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to expose a surface of the substrate through the molding material, in prior art’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by providing external connections to the die without the need of etching the mold.
Regarding claim 33, in the combined device, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that forming the molding material includes forming a notch between the first lead and the second lead.
Regarding claim 34, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that a surface of the elongated protrusion is coplanar with the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 35, Liao et al. teach in figures 1-4 and related text that the trench and the elongated protrusion collectively define at least a portion of a lead-substrate creepage distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. 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).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
3/14/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800