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 .
Election/Restrictions Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 2 directed to a device and Claims 10-21 in the Response to Restriction Requirements filed on 04/13/26 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 10-21 are examined on merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10, 15, 16, and 20 recites parameters numbers and units of measurements without any space between them. Please, be advised that it is common in the industry to recite them with a space, such as, for example, “5 nm”.
Claims 15 and 20 recite: “a length and width”. Examiner suggests changing the limitations to: “a length and a width”.
Claims 13, 18, and 19 recite: “chemical vapor deposition” and/or “physical vapor deposition”. Examiner suggests citing these recitations with an article “a”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claims 10 and 15: Independent Claims 10 and 15 have recitations: “thickness is the range of 1 um to 15 um”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in using article “the” in the above recitation, since it was not earlier cited with an article “a”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
In re Claims 11-14 and 16-21: Claims 11-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency either on claim 10 or on Claim 15.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 10-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (JP 2012064630) in view of Wang et al. (CN 116404064).
In re Claim 10, Saito teaches a package, comprising (Fig. 6B, page 2- two last paragraphs and page 3 - two first paragraphs):
first 201a and second 201b dies including first 201a and second 201b diodes, respectively;
first 209a and second 209b metal contacts coupled to bottom surfaces of the first 201a and second 201b dies, respectively,
the first 209a and second 209b metal contacts exposed to a bottom surface of the package and having thicknesses (inherently);
a bond wire 208 coupled to top surfaces of the first 201a and second 201b dies, the top surfaces of the first and second dies opposing the bottom surfaces of the first and second dies; and
a mold compound 210 covering the first 201a and second 201b dies and the bond wire 208, the mold compound 210 contacting the first 209a and second 209b metal contacts.
Saito does not teach that the first and second metal contacts have a thickness in a range of in the range of 1 um to 15 um – no information on the metal contacts thickness is provided.
Wang teaches (Fig. 1) a metal contact/pad 12 having a thickness in a range from 1 um to 20 um (page 3, underlined text, page 7, underlined text), where the contact was created by a vacuum evaporation method (page 8, underlined text).
Saito and Wang teach analogous arts related to metal contacts for semiconductor elements, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Saito device in view of the Wang device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Wang created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Saito package by substituting its metal contacts of undisclosed thicknesses with metal contacts of Wang created by a vacuum evaporation method and having a thickness in the range from 1 un to 20 um, in order to enable creation of such parameter of the metal contacts as their thickness. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Claim 11, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 10 as cited above, wherein, as shown for Claim 10, the first and second metal contacts are not part of a lead frame – they are created by a vacuum evaporation method.
In re Claim 12, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 10 as cited above, wherein, as shown for Claim 10, the first and second metal contacts are applied to the bottom surfaces of the first and second dies by a metal deposition technique – being a vacuum evaporation technique.
In re Claim 13, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 12 as cited above, wherein the metal deposition technique is physical vapor deposition (PVD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD): As is known in the art, the vacuum evaporation technique includes such methods as PVD and CVD – see paragraph 0076 of Fure e al (US 2003/0015517) or paragraph 0105 of Momoda et al. (US 2007/0127133).
In re Claim 14, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 10 as cited above, wherein the package lacks a die attach layer – Saito or Wang do(es) not teach such a layer.
In re Claim 16, Saito teaches a package, comprising (Fig. 6B, page 2 – two last paragraphs and page 3 – two first paragraphs):
first 201a and second 201b dies including first and second diodes, respectively;
first 209a and second 209b metal contacts coupled to bottom surfaces of the first 201a and second 201b dies, respectively, the first 209a and second 209b metal contacts exposed to a bottom surface of the package and having thicknesses (inherently),
a bond wire 208 coupled to top surfaces of the first 201a and second 201b dies, the top surfaces of the first and second dies opposing the bottom surfaces of the first and second dies; and
a mold compound 210 covering the first 201a and second 201b dies and the bond wire 208, the mold compound 210 contacting the first 209a and second 209b metal contacts, wherein
the package lacks a conductive die attach layer.
Saito does not teach that the first and second metal contacts have a thickness in a range of in the range of 1 um to 15 um – no information on the metal contacts thickness is provided. Saito further does not teach that the first and second metal contacts have physical properties indicating that the first and second metal contacts were formed by deposition on the bottom surfaces of the first and second dies.
Wang teaches (Fig. 1) a metal contact/pad having a thickness in a range from 1 um to 20 um (page 3, underlined text, page 7, underlined text), the metal contact/pad was created by a vacuum evaporation method (page 8, underlined text), and, accordingly, has physical properties indicating that it was formed by deposition on a bottom surface of a die.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Saito package by substituting its metal contacts of undisclosed thicknesses with metal contacts of Wang created by a vacuum evaporation method and having a thickness in the range from 1 un to 20 um, in order to enable creation of such parameter of the metal contacts as their thickness. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Claim 17, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 16 as cited above, wherein, as is shown for Claim 16, the first and second metal contacts are not obtained from a lead frame.
In re Claim 18, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 16 as cited above, wherein the first and second metal contacts are formed by physical vapor deposition (PVD): Wang teaches a vacuum evaporation method, which inherently includes a PVD method – see paragraph 0076 of Fure e al (US 2003/0015517) or paragraph 0105 of Momoda et al. (US 2007/0127133).
In re Claim 19, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 16 as cited above, wherein the first and second metal contacts are formed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD): Wang teaches a vacuum evaporation method, which inherently includes a CVD method – see paragraph 0076 of Fure e al (US 2003/0015517) or paragraph 0105 of Momoda et al. (US 2007/0127133).
In re Claim 21, Saito/Wang teaches the package of Claim 16 as cited above, wherein Saito teaches (page 2 and two top paragraphs of page 3) that the package is an electrostatic discharge device (ESD).
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito/Wang in view of ESD diode specification (NPL, attached to the Office Action).
In re Claims 15 and 20, Saito/Wang teaches the packages of Claims 10 and 16 as cited above, but does not teach that the first die – the first ESD diode - has a length and width between 100 um and 1000 um – no information on the length and width of the ESD diode is provided.
ESD diode specification (created for the ESD diode by Texas Instruments in 2016) teaches that a length and a width of the ESD diode (page 1 in section 3 Description) is in a range from 300 um to 600 um.
Saito/Wang and “ESD diode specification” are from the same field of endeavor directed to ESD diodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Saito/Wang diode in view of the above specification, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and the ESD diode specification refers to the ESD diodes successfully used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the Saito/Wang diodes of Claims 10 and 15 with a length and a width in the range from 100 um to 1000 um, since ESD diodes with such dimensions are needed in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, 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; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 04/16/26
Prosecution Insights