Attorney’s Docket Number: BOIP-121US1
Filing Date: 11/15/2023
Claimed Priority Date: CN 202211434404 (11/16/2022)
Applicants: Zhu et al.
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 01/08/2025
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
Applicant’s elections without traverse of Group II Invention, directed to a semiconductor structure in the reply filed on 06/05/2026, is acknowledged. Applicant indicated that claims 1-14 read on the elected Group I. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “two adjacent functional parts” at then later recites “two functional parts” It is unclear if both recitations of the two functional parts are directed to a same or different features, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be construed as reciting -- two functional parts adjacent to each other--, as best understood by the examiner in view of the original disclosure, until further clarifications are provided by the applicant.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1, thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest identified prior art, Huang et al (CN 102723321 A) shows most aspects of a lead frame for and optocoupler (Fig 1-3) comprising:
A lead frame for an optocoupler, being a metal sheet, and comprising a plurality of frame units (e.g., Fig 3) and a plurality of mutually parallel connecting strips, wherein respective frame units (Frame unit 1) are arranged at intervals on each of the connecting strips; each of the respective frame units comprises two adjacent functional parts (e.g., “each of the lead frame unit I comprises a bent opposite to the first chip bonding part 11 and second chip bonding part 12, and a first die bonding portion 13 and the second die bonding part 14), and two pins perpendicularly connected to the each of the connecting strips, the two functional parts are both located on one side of the each of connecting strips and are respectively connected to the two pins, ends of the two pins are located on another side of the each of connecting strips (Pins 15 and 16 are connected to 11 and 16 respectively); and
However, while Huang has two functional parts, it does not anticipate or make obvious the following:
each of the two functional parts has an area sufficient to accommodate a chip to be installed and fixed,
Rather, Huang shows one of the functional parts, the bonding portion 13 is for bonding with a wire, rather than providing an area for a direct bond to a chip.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art, Huang, shows conventional optocoupler with vertically opposed lead frame units with a light emitting and light sensing chip as seen in FIG 2, however they are not formed with a lead frame sheet including two functional parts with an area capable of adhering a chip.
Other prior art made of record (CN 202888163 U, CN 202275831 U, CN 107785346 A) also discloses most aspects of a lead frame for an optocoupler, however all fail to show two functional parts each capable of adhering a chip in the lead frame units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights