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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023, 02/14/2024. 03/28/2024, 10/10/2024. 11/06/2024, 01/02/2025, 03/06/2025, 04/09/2025, 05/23/2025, 06/11/2026, 09/16/2025, 11/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claims 2-22 should end with a comma. For example for claim 2, “The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1” should be, “The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7, and 16 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.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the package body is singulated along the reduced area edge of the input portion of the primary conductor”. It is not clear to the Examiner what the package body is singulated from. The Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the package body is singulated from other identical package bodies. However, the Examiner is aware that it may be the case that the package body is singulated from a testing device which tests the package body.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “wherein each of the plurality of secondary leads is offset with respect to the exposed portion in a direction of a thickness of the respective secondary lead”. The Examiner finds that this limitation is indefinite as a plurality of secondary leads as a whole cannot be offset from a part of itself. The Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that an elongated portion of the plurality of secondary leads is offset with respect to the exposed portion in a direction of a thickness of the respective secondary lead.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “wherein at least one of the plurality of secondary leads ”. The Examiner finds this limitation to be indefinite due to its multiple interpretations. The first interpretation is that the Applicant intends to refer to one lead in the plurality of secondary leads. The second interpretation is that the Applicant intends to refer to one set of a plurality of secondary leads. In view of claim 11, the Examiner interprets the limitation according to the first interpretation.
Claim 18 is further rejected due to its dependence upon claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milano et al US 20160282388 A1 and further in view of Hauser et al US 20040113240 A1 US 20040113240 A1. Milano et al and Hauser et al will be referenced to as Milano and Hauser respectively henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Milano teaches:
“A current sensor integrated circuit package comprising:
a primary conductor having an input portion into which a current flows (primary conductor 16, terminal end 16ba [0046], FIG. 1A, FIG. 2: 16ba is a terminal and a part of 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 16ba may be an input.), an output portion from which the current flows (primary conductor 16, terminal end 16bb, [0046], FIG. 1A, FIG. 2: 16bb is a terminal and a part of 16. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 16bb may be an output.), and an exposed portion, wherein the input portion has a reduced area edge and the output portion has a reduced area edge (annotated FIG. 7 #1: The input and output have reduced area edges as defined by the Applicant. That is, were the reduced edges replaced by a flat surface, the surface area of 16 would increase by the lost surface areas.);
a plurality of secondary leads, each having an exposed portion spaced from the exposed portion of the primary conductor by an isolation distance of at least 2.0 mm (secondary leads 18-32, [0038], FIG. 1B: The distance D between the primary conductor 16 and the secondary leads 18-32 is at least 7.2 mm.), wherein an elongated portion of each of the plurality of secondary leads is offset with respect to the exposed portion of the respective secondary lead (annotated FIG. 1A #1);
a semiconductor die disposed adjacent to the primary conductor (semiconductor die 50, [0042], FIG. 1B: 50 is on 16.) and positioned on an insulator portion (insulation structure 40, [0038]. FIG. 1A-B: 50 is on 40);
at least one magnetic field sensing element supported by the semiconductor die (magnetic field sensing element 54a, 54b, [0048], FIG. 1A: 54a and 54b are supported by 50.); and
a package body (non-conductive package material, [0045], FIG. 1B) comprising a first portion enclosing the semiconductor die and a portion of the primary conductor (annotated FIG. 5A #1) and a second portion enclosing the elongated portion of the plurality of secondary leads (FIG. 1A, annotated FIG. 5A #1)”
Milano doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the first portion of the package body has a first width configured to expose the input portion of the primary conductor and the output portion of the primary conductor and wherein the second portion of the package body has a second width between a first side edge of the package body and a second side edge of the package body that is larger than the first width”
However, Hauser teaches:
“wherein the first portion of the package body has a first width configured to expose the input portion of the primary conductor and the output portion of the primary conductor (Hauser: [0021], annotated FIG. 1 #1: The first width exists because of the support holes.) and wherein the second portion of the package body has a second width between a first side edge of the package body and a second side edge of the package body that is larger than the first width (Hauser: annotated FIG. 1 #1)”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Milano is modifiable in view of Hauser by embedding the input and output terminals of a primary conductor into a support hole.
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that embedding the input and output terminals of a primary conductor into a support hole would have the benefit of preventing tipping of primary conductor during a molding procedure (Hauser: [0021]). The prevention of- tipping is beneficial because a tilting of the primary conductor may result in undesirable magnetic and electronic properties that impair the sensitivity of the Hall sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Milano: Annotated FIG. 7 #1
PNG
media_image2.png
746
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Milano: Annotated FIG. 1A #1
PNG
media_image3.png
580
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Milano: Annotated FIG. 5A #1
PNG
media_image4.png
694
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hauser: Annotated FIG. 1 #1
Regarding Claim 2,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein the exposed input portion of the primary conductor and the exposed output portion of the primary conductor have a length of at least 0.5mm (Milano/Hauser: Milano: FIG. 5: 16 protrudes from 44 by a distance of 1 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art combining Milano with Hauser would recognize that were 16 to be embedded into 44, the embedding distance would have to cover the protrusion of 16. That is, the first width needs to have a distance of at least 1 mm.). ”
Regarding Claim 3,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 2 wherein the exposed input portion of the primary conductor and the exposed output portion of the primary conductor are configured to accept one or both of a clamp or a test probe (Milano: FIG. 8: a window clamp is placed in contact with the primary conductor 16.).”
Regarding Claim 5,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 4 wherein the reduced area edge of the input portion of the primary conductor does not extend beyond the first side edge of the package body (Milano/Hauser: Milano: FIG. 5: one of ordinary skill in the art combining Milano with Hauser would recognize that 16 of Milano would be embedded into a support hole of Hauser.) and wherein the reduced area edge of the output portion of the primary conductor does not extend beyond the second side edge of the package body (Milano/Hauser: Milano: FIG. 5: One of ordinary skill in the art combining Milano with Hauser would recognize that 16 of Milano would be embedded into a support hole of Hauser.).”
Regarding Claim 8,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein the elongated portion of each of the plurality of secondary leads has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the exposed portion of the respective secondary lead (Milano: FIG. 1: The exposed portions of the secondary leads is thicker than the elongated portion of the secondary leads.).”
Regarding Claim 9,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein the isolation distance is at least 4.0 mm (Milano: [0038], FIG. 1B: The distance D between the primary conductor 16 and the secondary leads 18-32 is at least 7.2 mm.).”
Regarding Claim 10,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein the isolation distance is at least 7.2 mm (Milano: [0038], FIG. 1B: The distance D between the primary conductor 16 and the secondary leads 18-32 is at least 7.2 mm.).”
Regarding Claim 11,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of secondary leads comprises a first secondary lead providing an output connection of the current sensor integrated circuit package (Milano [0066]: lead 20 may provide a connection to a current sensor output signal.), a second secondary lead providing a voltage input connection of the current sensor integrated circuit package (Milano: [0066]: lead 18 may provide a power connection to circuit 52), and a third secondary lead providing a ground connection of the current sensor integrated circuit package (Milano: [0066]: lead 22 may provide a ground connection to circuit 52.).”
Regarding Claim 12,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 further comprising a front-end amplifier supported by the semiconductor die (Milano: amplifier 672, [0068], FIG. 6: 672 is on 50.), wherein the at least one magnetic field sensing element is coupled to the front-end amplifier (Milano: FIG. 6: 54a, 54b, is electrically coupled to 672.).”
Regarding Claim 13,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 comprising at least two magnetic field sensing elements (Milano: 54a and 54b make up two magnetic field sensing elements.).”
Regarding Claim 14,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 12 wherein the at least two magnetic field sensing elements are Hall effect elements (Milano: [0042]).”
Regarding Claim 15,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 13 wherein the at least two magnetic field sensing elements are coupled to provide a differential output (Milano: [0066]: 54a and 54b may include differential sensing.).”
Regarding Claim 17,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 further comprising a wafer backside coating material on a back of the semiconductor die (Milano: [0012], [0056], FIG. 1C: A thin sheet, 40a, may be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a coating material.).”
Regarding Claim 18,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 16 further comprising a second wafer backside coating material on the back of the semiconductor die (Milano: [0012], [0056], FIG. 1C: A thin sheet, 40b, may be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a second coating material. The Examiner suspects the Applicant intended this claim to depend upon claim 17 and not claim 16.).”
Regarding Claim 19,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein the exposed portion of the primary conductor is substantially orthogonal to the first side edge of the package body and the second side edge of the package body (Milano: FIG. 1).”
Regarding Claim 20,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit of claim 1 wherein the insulator portion extends beyond an edge of the primary conductor in a direction towards the plurality of secondary leads (Milano: FIG. 1).”
Regarding Claim 21,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit of claim 20 wherein the insulator portion extends beyond the edge of the primary conductor in the direction towards the plurality of secondary leads by at least 0.1 mm (Milano: [0060], FIG. 1C: 40 extends past 16 by at least 0.4 mm.).”
Regarding Claim 22,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit of claim 20 wherein the insulator portion extends beyond the edge of the primary conductor in the direction towards the plurality of secondary leads by at least 0.4 mm (Milano: [0060], FIG. 1C: 40 extends past 16 by at least 0.4 mm.).”
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milano/Hauser as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of Gagnon et al US 5289344 A. Gagnon et al will be referenced to as Gagnon henceforth.
Regarding Claim 4,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1”
Milano/Hauser doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the elongated portion of each of the plurality of secondary leads extends in a direction parallel to the first and second side edges of the package body.”
However, Gagnon teaches:
“wherein the elongated portion of each of the plurality of secondary leads extends in a direction parallel to the first and second side edges of the package body (Gagnon: col 6 lines 5-17, annotated FIG. 2 #1).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Milano/Hauser is modifiable in view of Gagnon by replacing the geometry of the secondary leads in Milano/Hauser for the secondary leads of Gagnon.
This is because the geometry of the leads allows for wire bonding to be done in a plane which is greatly advantageous to manufacturing a semiconductor device. (Gagnon: col 6 lines 5-17, FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
682
946
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Gagnon: Annotated FIG. 5 #1
Regarding Claim 7,
Milano/Hauser/Gagnon teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of secondary leads has a substantially constant thickness (Gagnon: annotated FIG. 5 #1) and wherein each of the plurality of secondary leads is offset with respect to the exposed portion in a direction of a thickness of the respective secondary lead (Gagnon: annotated FIG. 5 #1: The leads are offset within the package in a direction perpendicular to the side edges. This direction is the thickness direction.).”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milano/Hauser as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-15, and 17-22 above, and further in view of Jochi US 20200381323 A1.
Regarding Claim 16,
Milano/Hauser teaches:
“The current sensor integrated circuit package of claim 1”
Milano/Hauser doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein at least one of the plurality of secondary leads provides a fault signal connection of the current sensor integrated circuit package.”
However, Jochi teaches:
“wherein at least one of the plurality of secondary leads provides a fault signal connection of the current sensor integrated circuit package (Jochi: [0071], FIG. 1: A lead may output an error/fault signal.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Milano/Hauser is modifiable in view of Jochi by specifying that a secondary lead may output a fault signal.
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that error measurements need to be outputted out of a current sensor circuit in order to properly calibrate a current sensor device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6,
Milano/Hauser/Jochi fails to explicitly teach:
“wherein the package body is singulated along the reduced area edge of the input portion of the primary conductor and along the reduced area edge of the output portion of the primary conductor” In view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Milano/Hauser/Jochi fails to explicitly teach the above limitation because the limitation cannot be found in the prior art of record. This is because Milano/Hauser/Jochi do not explicitly indicate where singulation occurs. Further, the Examiner’s interpretation of the location of a reduced area edge is incompatible with a location in which singulation occurs. The closest prior art the Examiner could find is US 20030073265 A1.
The Examiner did not find prior art which one of ordinary skill in the art would use alone or would find obvious to combine with the invention of Milano/Hauser/Jochi to reach all of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 6:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812