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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (8,093,707).
Re claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a die pad (204) having a die (202) disposing area (Fig. 2B); a plurality of lead pads (212) located around the die pad; an outer frame (223), located at a periphery of the die pad (204) and the lead pads (212); at least two tie bars (218), respectively connected between the outer frame (223) and two opposite sides of the die pad (204); wherein the die pad (204) includes a thermal deformation mitigation structure (Col. 1, lines 27-30).
Re claim 8, Lee et al. disclose wherein the lead frame is applied to a quad flat no lead (QFN) package (Col.8, lines 20-22), quad flat package (QFP) (Col. 8, lines 9-11), dual in-line package (DIP) (Col. 8, lines 6-7), small outline package (SOP) (Col. 8, lines 9-11).
Re claim 10, Lee et al. disclose wherein the tie bars (218) are respectively connected to two eccentric positions of the die pad (Fig. 2B).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 10 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Lee et al. does not specifically disclose wherein when a chip die is disposed on the die pad, or when the chip die and the lead pads are connected by lead wires, a press tool is put on the outer frame to reduce the influence of thermal deformation.
However, using a press tool when a chip die is disposed on the die pad, or when the chip die and the lead pads are connected by lead wires was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known tool in the package manufacturing process to create a permanent functional bond.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the thermal deformation mitigation structure includes a multi-thickness structure in the die pad and the tie bars, as recited in claim 2;
wherein the multi-thickness structure is disposed at fringes of the die pad and the tie bars, and the multi-thickness structure has a first thickness and a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is thicker than the first thickness, wherein a part of the first thickness is at outer portions of the fringes of the die pad and the tie bars, and a part of the second thickness is at inner portions of the fringes of the die pad and the tie bars, as recited in claim 3;
wherein a part of the first thickness in the tie bars is connected to the die pad by a larger contact area than another part of the first thickness in the tie bars which is connected to the outer frame, as recited in claim 4;
wherein the first thickness is formed by semi-etching an original thickness to reduce the original thickness to the first thickness, as recited in claim 5;
wherein a part of the second thickness in the tie bars includes a first width and a second width, wherein the first width is smaller than the second width, and wherein the first width is closer to the die pad, and the second width is closer to the outer frame, as recited in claim 6;
wherein a part of the second thickness in the tie bars includes a continuously-varying-width structure or a discrete-step structure, wherein a narrower side of the continuously-varying-width structure or the discrete-step structure is closer to the die pad, and a wider side of the continuously-varying-width structure or the discrete-step structure is closer to the outer frame, as recited in claim 7.
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: there is no disclosure in the prior art of “wherein the thermal deformation mitigation structure includes a multi-thickness structure in at least one of the die pad and the tie bars”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 9,960,137 A1, US 2014/0145324 A1 disclose a similar configuration for a lead frame with a plurality of lead pads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 February 19, 2026