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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 was filed and is in compliance with provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0020], line 6, and line 7 states “However, this solution requires twice the number of LED chips to be packaged. To reduce the device cost, this solution employs the lead frame…. “
The use of the word “this”, twice mentioned, is confusing because the paragraph appears to be comparing two solutions of the prior art, versus comparing a solution of the prior art and a solution of the instant application. It is suggested the first occurrence of “this solution” be changed to “this prior art solution”, or the second occurrence of “this solution” be changed to “the current solution” or “Applicant’s solution” or a similar phrase, to show the difference between the old solution and the new solution. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claim(s). Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“Two leads (5) connected to two ends of the LED chip (4)”, as recited in claim 2, (Note only one lead (5) is shown in Figures 1-2. Two leads are not shown in any figure).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, lines 1-2, recites “comprising” without a colon following it. There is no clarification on where the pre-amble of the claim begins and ends, and where the body of the claim starts. It is suggested a colon be properly inserted at the end of the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2, line 5, recites “two sides of the top end of the lead frame body (1)”, in reference to figure 2 which is a top view of the claimed device. The examiner notes and brings to Applicant’s attention, if it critical for this feature to only appear in a top view, the examiner suggests the language in claim 2 be amended to reflect “in a top view”.
Claim 3, lines 4 and 6, and claim 4, line 4 recite “electrically conducted” which is informal. The examiner suggests changing the recitation to “electrically connected”.
Dependent claims 5-6 are also objected to as they depend on claim 1.
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 1-6 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “lead frame body” in claims 1-3 and 5 is used by the claim to mean a package body or “a body in the shape of a flat plate, made of glass, fiberglass cloth, a resin adhesive, or a PC material,” while the accepted meaning is “a package body.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art understands a lead frame refers to the conductive metal and metal layer frame which has leads from it to connect the chip embedded within the frame to other components. However, what is disclosed by Applicant bears no resemblance to a lead frame. Rather, the disclosure and figures are drawn to a package body instead. For purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the term as “a package body”.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “bonded through the lead (5)”, however, there is no antecedent basis for “the lead (5)” since the term is not mentioned in claim 5 or in claim 1. Applicant could perhaps change the dependency of claim 6 to depend on claim 2, but then the question would be which lead (5) is being referenced, since claim 2 recites two leads (5). It is suggested Applicant be consistent throughout the claims as to whether there is one lead (5) as the drawings suggest, or two leads (5) as the specification and claims suggest, for definiteness and clarity, and to be consistent with limitations recited in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 4, recites “LED chip (4) is packaged and fixed with the positive electrode conductive connection region (22)” which renders the claim indefinite and unclear, because “LED chip (4)” it is not fixed with (22) in the drawings, it is fixed with (32). Also, it is not clear what “fixed” means. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claim 4 is also rejected to as it depends on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joichi et al. (US 8,158,990 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Joichi et al. teaches a fully luminous light emitting diode (LED) light source, comprising a lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1), a positive electrode terminal, (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) a negative electrode terminal, (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) an LED chip, (100; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) and a packaging colloid, (120; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) wherein
the lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) is made of a light-transmissive material (resin; column 4, line 19);
the positive electrode terminal (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) and the negative electrode terminal (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) exist in pairs, and are not in contact (112 and 113 are separated by a gap on top of 111 and below 111 and not in contact; Joichi annotated Fig. 1);
the LED chip (100; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) is electrically connected to the positive electrode terminal (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) and the negative electrode terminal; (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) and
the packaging colloid (120; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) is disposed at a top end of the lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1), and the LED chip (100; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) is packaged and fixed inside the packaging colloid (120; Joichi annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Joichi annotated Fig.1
Regarding claim 3, Joichi et al. teaches the fully luminous LED light source according to claim 1, wherein a positive electrode pad (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1 bottom surface) and a negative electrode pad (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1, bottom surface) are provided at a bottom end of the lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1), the positive electrode pad (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1 bottom surface ) is arranged opposite to the positive electrode terminal (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1, top surface), the positive electrode pad (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1 bottom surface ) is electrically conducted with the positive electrode terminal (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1; top surface; top surface is electrically connected to bottom surface through side connection, wrapping around the side of 111), the negative electrode pad (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1 bottom surface ) is arranged opposite to the negative electrode terminal (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1; top surface), and the negative electrode pad (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1 bottom surface ) is electrically conducted with the negative electrode terminal (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1, top surface).
Regarding claim 5, Joichi et al. teaches the fully luminous LED light source according to claim 1, wherein a positive electrode conductive connection region (positive electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) and a negative electrode conductive connection region (negative electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) are provided at the top end of the lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1), and an interval (gap; Joichi annotated Fig.1) is provided between the negative electrode conductive connection region (negative electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) and the positive electrode conductive connection region (positive electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Joichi et al. teaches the fully luminous LED light source according to claim 5, wherein the LED chip (100; Joichi annotated Fig.1) is disposed in the negative electrode conductive connection region (one side of chip is on the negative electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1), the LED chip (100; Joichi annotated Fig.1) and the positive electrode conductive connection region (positive electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) are bonded through the lead (“the bonding agent one having an electrical conductivity, for example solder such as Au-Sn solder, a conductive paste such as a silver paste.”; column 4, line 7), and the LED chip (100; Joichi annotated Fig.1) is packaged and fixed with the positive electrode conductive connection region (positive electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) and the negative electrode conductive connection region (negative electrode conductive connection region; Joichi annotated Fig.1) through the packaging colloid (120; Joichi annotated Fig.1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joichi et al. (US 6, 158,990 B2) in view of Kawabata (US 11608941 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Joichi et al. teaches the fully luminous LED light source according to claim 1, wherein the lead frame body (package body 111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) is in the shape of a flat plate (package body 111 is flat and in the shape of a plate; Joichi annotated Fig. 1) and is made of resin. Joichi also teaches wherein the positive electrode terminal (112; Joichi annotated Fig. 1; left top side) and the negative electrode terminal (113; Joichi annotated Fig. 1; right top side) are respectively disposed on two sides of the top end of the lead frame body (111; Joichi annotated Fig. 1).
However, Joichi et al. does not explicitly teach the lead frame body is made of glass, fiberglass cloth, a resin adhesive, or a polycarbonate (PC) material. Joichi also does not teach two leads are respectively connected to two ends of the LED chip, and the two leads are respectively bonded to the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal; and the leads are packaged and fixed inside the packaging colloid.
Kawabata teaches a substrate (1; column 5, line 46, Fig.1) made of e.g. glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy resin which has an elongated plate-like shape. Kawabata also teaches the LED chip (21; column 6, line 23; Fig.4) includes two electrodes (not shown) which are connected with the wiring pattern (23; Fig.4) and (24; Fig.4) via the wire (25; Fig.4). Furthermore wiring (23 and 24; Fig.4) are connected to the substrate (1; Fig.1) and the chip (21; Fig.4) and its wire (25; Fig.4) are packed inside the sealing resin (27; Fig.4).
Joichi and Kawabata are analogous art to the claimed invention because they both are directed to semiconductor devices with Light emitting diodes (LEDs) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Joichi in view of Kawabata because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joichi to have the lead frame body (package body 111) made of glass, fiberglass cloth, a resin adhesive, as taught by Kawabata, with the motivation that since Joichi already teaches a resin packaging substrate 111, one of ordinary skill would find substituting a resin adhesive or a glass-fiber reinforced epoxy resin, to serve the same purpose, an obvious substitution, especially in the absence of any criticality or unexpected result arising from the lead frame body materials in Applicant’s disclosure.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joichi to have two leads respectively connected to two ends of the LED chip, and the two leads respectively bonded to the positive electrode terminal, and the negative electrode terminal; and the leads packaged and fixed inside the packaging colloid, as taught by Kawabata, with the motivation that Kawabata teaches this is generally well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in the absence of any criticality or unexpected result arising from the arrangement of the connections, terminals and leads expressed in Applicant’s disclosure.
Furthermore, the determination and selection of parameters including dimensions (i.e. layout/configuration, shape of a lead, trace/wiring, solder ball/bump, etc.), in the Semiconductor Device Packaging Technology art is a subject of routine experimentation and optimization to achieve improved bonding strength, reliability and reduced stress.
PNG
media_image2.png
421
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kawabata Fig.1
PNG
media_image3.png
271
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawabata Fig.4
Regarding claim 4, Joichi et al. teaches the fully luminous LED light source according to claim 3, wherein the positive electrode terminal (112; Fig. 1) is electrically conducted with the positive electrode pad and the negative electrode terminal (113; Fig. 1) is electrically conducted with the negative electrode pad.
However, it does not teach that outer sides of each of the positive electrode terminals and the negative electrode terminals each are provided with an arc-shaped notch, copper is provided on a side wall of the arc-shaped notch, the positive electrode terminal is electrically conducted with the positive electrode pad through the copper, and the negative electrode terminal is electrically conducted with the negative electrode pad through the copper.
Kawabata teaches, the substrate (22; Fig.4) has a recess (28; Fig.5) is in semicircular shape (28; Fig.5). The conductive wires (23; Fig.4) and (24; Fig.4) passes through recess (28; Fig.5) and connected with the substrate (1; Kawabata Fig.1).
Joichi and Kawabata are analogous art to the claimed invention because they both are directed to semiconductor devices with Light emitting diodes (LEDs) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Joichi in view of Kawabata because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Joichi to have outer sides of each of the positive electrode terminals and the negative electrode terminals each provided with an arc-shaped notch, copper provided on a side wall of the arc-shaped notch, the positive electrode terminal electrically conducted with the positive electrode pad through the copper, and the negative electrode terminal electrically conducted with the negative electrode pad through the copper, as taught by Kawabata, with the motivation that copper is a well-known conductor for connections, electrodes and terminals, and the arc-shaped notch is a design choice to produce a desired result perhaps pertaining to surface area, or resistance, or stress of the package substrate.
Furthermore, the determination and selection of parameters including dimensions (i.e. layout/configuration, shape of a lead, shape of a substrate, trace/wiring, solder ball/bump, etc.), in the Semiconductor Device Packaging Technology art is a subject of routine experimentation and optimization to achieve improved bonding strength, reliability and reduced stress.
PNG
media_image4.png
275
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kawabata Fig.5
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to RUDRA B CHAUDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-
9292. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 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 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.
/R. B. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 2811
/LYNNE A GURLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811