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 IDS filed on November 30th, 2023 has been considered.
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) 1, 4-12, 14, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavier (U.S. Pub. 2021/0175200) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0049716).
In re claim 1, Pavier discloses a semiconductor package, including: a lead frame portion (110.1,110.2) (see paragraph [0065] and fig. 11E); a semiconductor component 111 electrically connected to the lead frame portion 110.2 (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E); a raised connector 116 including a vertical column and a horizontal pad contiguous with the vertical column, the vertical column being attached to the lead frame portion 110.2 (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E); and an encapsulation material 117 contacting the lead frame portion (110.1,110.2) and the raised connector 116, wherein the horizontal pad is exposed at a top surface of the encapsulation material 117 (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pavier is silent to wherein the raised connector having a continuous core extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core being electrically conductive.
However, Yang discloses in a same field of endeavor, a semiconductor package including, inter-alia, a raised connector having a continuous core 165B extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core 165B being electrically conductive (copper) (see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3D).
PNG
media_image2.png
423
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Yang into the semiconductor package of Pavier in order to enable wherein the raised connector having a continuous core extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core being electrically conductive in Pavier to be formed in order to obtain a raised connector with increased resistance to electro-migration failures and interconnect corrosion (see paragraph [0051] of Yang). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the lead frame portion 110.2 has an alignment structure where the vertical column is attached (see paragraph [0065] and fig. 11E of Pavier).
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the raised connector includes a solderable material 170 on the horizontal pad (see paragraph [0029] and fig. 3D of Yang).
In re claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the raised connector includes a solderable material 155B surrounding the continuous core 165B (see paragraph [0035] and fig. 3D of Yang).
In re claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the vertical column is a first vertical column; the raised connector further includes a second vertical column; the second vertical column is attached to the lead frame portion; and the continuous core extends throughout the second vertical column (see paragraphs [0050], [0051] and fig. 9 of Pavier and paragraph [0035] and fig. 3D of Yang).
In re claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the raised connector is a first raised connector; the vertical column is a first vertical column; the horizontal pad is a first horizontal pad; the continuous core is a first continuous core; and the semiconductor package further includes a second raised connector including a second vertical column and a second horizontal pad contiguous with the second vertical column, the second raised connector having a second continuous core extending throughout the second vertical column and the second horizontal pad; wherein: the second vertical column is attached to the lead frame portion; the second horizontal pad is exposed at the top surface of the encapsulation material; and the encapsulation material contacts the second raised connector (see paragraphs [0050], [0051] and fig. 9 of Pavier and paragraph [0035] and fig. 3D of Yang).
In re claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein a pad thickness of the continuous core in the horizontal pad is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pad thickness of continuous core in the horizontal pad and the bus thickness of the lead frame portion so that a pad thickness of the continuous core in the horizontal pad is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column because it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape and size of the continuous core in the horizontal pad and the lead frame was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
In re claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein a column width of the continuous core in the vertical column is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the column width of the continuous core in the vertical column and the bus thickness of the lead frame portion so that a column width of the continuous core in the vertical column is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column because it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape and size of the continuous core in the vertical column and the lead frame was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
In re claim 11, Pavier discloses a method of forming a semiconductor package, including: attaching a semiconductor component 111 to a lead frame portion (110.1,110.2) (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E); providing a raised connector 116 including a vertical column and a horizontal pad connected to the vertical column; attaching the vertical column to the lead frame portion 110.2 (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E); and forming an encapsulation material 117 on the lead frame portion (110.1,110.2) and the raised connector 116, wherein the horizontal pad is exposed at a top surface of the encapsulation material 117 (see paragraph [0064] and fig. 11E).
Pavier is silent to wherein the raised connector having a continuous core extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core being electrically conductive.
However, Yang discloses in a same field of endeavor, a method of forming a semiconductor package including, inter-alia, providing a raised connector having a continuous core 165B extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core 165B being electrically conductive (copper) (see paragraph [0027] and fig. 3D).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Yang into method of forming the semiconductor package of Pavier in order to enable the step of providing the raised connector having a continuous core extending throughout the vertical column and the horizontal pad, the continuous core being electrically conductive in Pavier to be performed in order to obtain a raised connector with increased resistance to electro-migration failures and interconnect corrosion (see paragraph [0051] of Yang). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein attaching the vertical column to the lead frame portion includes forming a solder connection 115 between the vertical column and the lead frame portion (see paragraphs [0062], [0064] and fig. 11A-E of Pavier).
In re claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the lead frame portion has an alignment structure where the vertical column is attached (see paragraph [0065] and fig. 11E of Pavier).
In re claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the raised connector include solder surrounding 155B the continuous core 165B (see paragraph [0035] and fig. 3D of Yang).
In re claim 18, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein a pad thickness of the continuous core in the horizontal pad is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pad thickness of the continuous core in the horizontal pad and the bus thickness of the lead frame portion so that a pad thickness of the continuous core in the horizontal pad is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column because it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape and size of the continuous core in the horizontal pad and the lead frame was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
In re claim 19, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein a column width of the continuous core in the vertical column is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the column width of the continouse core in the vertical column and the bus thickness of the lead frame portion so that a column width of the continuous core in the vertical column is greater than a bus thickness of the lead frame portion adjacent to the vertical column because it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape and size of the continuous core in the vertical column and the lead frame was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
In re claim 20, as applied to claim 11 above, Pavier in combination with Yang discloses wherein the lead frame portion is a first lead frame portion, and the raised connector is connected to a second lead frame portion, and further including separating the raised connector from the second lead frame portion after forming the encapsulation material on the lead frame portion and the raised connector (see paragraph [0065] and fig. 11E of Pavier).
Claim(s) 2, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavier (U.S. Pub. 2021/0175200) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0049716), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Oh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0152566).
In re claims 2 and 16, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein the semiconductor package further including attaching an external component over a top surface of the encapsulation material, and forming an electrical connection between the external component and the horizontal pad.
However, Oh discloses in a same field of endeavor, a semiconductor package and a method of forming the semiconductor package including, inter-alia, the step of attaching an external component 12 over a top surface of the encapsulation material 710, and forming an electrical connection 50 between the external component 12 and the horizontal pad of the raised connector 400 (see paragraphs [0071], [0084], [0089], and fig. 8).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Oh into the semiconductor package of Pavier in order to enable wherein the semiconductor package further including attaching an external component over a top surface of the encapsulation material, and forming an electrical connection between the external component and the horizontal pad in Pavier to be performed in order to improve functionality of the semiconductor package.
In re claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, Pavier in combination with Yang and Oh discloses wherein forming the electrical connection between the external component and the horizontal pad includes forming a solder connection 50 between the external component and the horizontal pad (see paragraph [0089] and fig. 8 of Oh).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavier (U.S. Pub. 2021/0175200) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0049716), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0140253).
In re claims 3 and 13, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, Pavier and Yang are silent to wherein the raised connector has a textured surface contacting the encapsulation material.
However, Lee discloses in a same field of endeavor, a semiconductor package including, inter-alia, wherein the raised connector has a textured surface (roughened surface) contacting the encapsulation material in order to improve adhesion between the raised connector and the encapsulation material (see paragraphs [0006], [0031]).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Lee into the semiconductor package of Pavier in order to enable wherein the raised connector has a textured surface contacting the encapsulation material in Pavier to be formed in order to improve adhesion between the raised connector and the encapsulation material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent 11,562,949) discloses a semiconductor package includes a semiconductor die with an active surface including metal pillars providing electrical connections to functional circuitry of the semiconductor die.
Lui et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0259689) discloses a semiconductor package including a die and leads encapsulated with a mold compound and including a re-routable clip attached to the die and being exposed at a top surface of the mold compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892