DETAILED ACTION
IDS
All references provided in the IDS have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 7. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 1, line 7 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 7. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 2, line 3 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5 recites: “the first and second sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite first and second”, as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 2. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 3, line 8 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 and claim 4, line 4 recites: “the second leads” and “the individual second leads”, respectively. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal second leads” as previously introduced in Claim 4, line 1. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal second leads” or just “second leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal second leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 4, line 4 and claim 4, line 5 recites: “the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 3, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2 recites: the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 3, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 5 recites: “the first and second sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite first and second”, as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 2. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, lines 1-2 recites: the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 6, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 4 and claim 8, lines 5-6 recites: “the second leads” and “the individual second leads”, respectively. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal second leads” as previously introduced in Claim 8, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal second leads” or just “second leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal second leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 8, line 5 and claim 8, line 7 recites: “the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 8, line 2. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 4 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 1, line 7. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, lines 9-10 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 9. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 10, line 9 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 5. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 1 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 9. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 11, line 3 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 5. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 5 recites: “the first and second sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite first and second”, as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 4. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 12, lines 7-8 recites: “the third and fourth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite third and fourth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 5. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 1-2 recites: the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 12, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 4 and claim 14, lines 5-6 recites: “the second leads” and “the individual second leads”, respectively. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal second leads” as previously introduced in Claim 14, line 3. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal second leads” or just “second leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal second leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 14, line 5 and claim 8, line 7 recites: “the fifth and sixth sides”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “opposite fifth and sixth sides”, as previously introduced in Claim 14, line 2. It is suggested that the applicant use consistent terminology throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, line 4 recites: “the first leads”. It is noted that the antecedent basis for this appears to be “conductive metal first leads” as previously introduced in Claim 10, line 9. It is suggested that the applicant utilize consistent terminology (i.e. reciting “conductive metal first leads” or just “first leads”) for all instances related to “conductive metal first leads” in the claims to improve clarity.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1,
Claim 1, line 2 recites: “opposite first and second sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite first side and an opposite second side” or “a first side and a second side that are opposite each other”. Accordingly, the recitation of “the second side” in line 6, and “the first side” in line 9 lacks clear antecedent basis. It has been interpreted to mean “a first side and a second side that are opposite each other”. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 1,
Claim 1, line 3 recites: “opposite third and fourth sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite third side and an opposite fourth side” or “a third side and a fourth side that are opposite each other”. Accordingly, “the third and fourth sides” recited in line 7 does not have clear antecedent basis. It has been interpreted to mean “a third side and a fourth side that are opposite each other”. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3,
Claim 3, line 3 recites: “opposite fifth and sixth sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite fifth side and an opposite sixth side” or “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. It has been interpreted to mean “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 3.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4,
Claim 4, line 2 recites: “the first side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a first side” has been recited. It has been interpreted to mean the same first side as described in Claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 4.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6,
Claim 6, line 3 recites: “opposite fifth and sixth sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite fifth side and an opposite sixth side” or “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. It has been interpreted to mean “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. Claims 7 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 6.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8,
Claim 8, lines 3-4 recites: “the first side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a first side” has been recited. It has been interpreted to mean the same first side as described in Claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9,
Claim 9, line 2 recites: “a first side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites “the first side”. It is unclear if “a first side” recited in Claim 9 is a different first side, or coincides to the side referred to in Claim 1. It has been interpreted to mean the same first side of Claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9,
Claim 9, lines 2-3 recites: “an opposite second side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites “opposite first and second sides”. It is unclear if “an opposite second side” recited in Claim 9 is a different opposite second side or coincides to the same opposite second side referred to in Claim 1. It has been interpreted to mean the same opposite second side of Claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 10,
Claim 10, line 4 recites: “opposite first and second sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite first side and an opposite second side” or “a first side and a second side that are opposite each other”. Accordingly, the recitation of “the second side” in line 8, and “the first side” in line 14 lacks clear antecedent basis. It has been interpreted to mean “a first side and a second side that are opposite each other”. Claims 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 10.
Regarding Independent Claim 10,
Claim 10, line 5 recites: “opposite third and fourth sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite third side and an opposite fourth side” or “a third side and a fourth side that are opposite each other”. Accordingly, “the third and fourth sides” recited in line 9 does not have clear antecedent basis. It has been interpreted to mean “a third side and a fourth side that are opposite each other”. Claims 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 10.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12,
Claim 12, line 3 recites: “opposite fifth and sixth sides”. It is unclear if this means “an opposite fifth side and an opposite sixth side” or “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. It has been interpreted to mean “a fifth side and a sixth side that are opposite each other”. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 12.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14,
Claim 14, lines 3-4 recites: “the first side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “a first side” has been recited. It has been interpreted to mean the same first side as described in Claim 10.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15,
Claim 15, line 2 recites: “a first side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this. Claim 10, the claim from which this claim depends, recites “the first side”. It is unclear if “a first side” recited in Claim 10 is a different first side, or coincides to the side referred to in Claim 10. It has been interpreted to mean the same first side of Claim 10.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15,
Claim 15, lines 2-3 recites: “an opposite second side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this. Claim 10, the claim from which this claim depends, recites “opposite first and second sides”. It is unclear if “an opposite second side” recited in Claim 9 is a different opposite second side or coincides to the same opposite second side referred to in Claim 1. It has been interpreted to mean the same opposite second side of Claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Corisis (US 20020195694 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Corisis discloses:
An electronic device (Corisis, semiconductor device; Fig. 4, element 70) comprising:
opposite first and second sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, the top planar portion of element 72 can be considered a second side, and they are opposites);
opposite third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left planar portion of element 72 can be considered a third side, the right planar portion of element 72 can be considered a fourth side, and they are opposites);
a molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]);
a semiconductor die (Corisis, semiconductor die; Fig. 4, element 72) having a backside metal structure (Corisis, third set; Fig. 4, element 104, ¶ [0035]) exposed outside the molded package structure along the second side (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows 104 extended along the top planar side of 72); and
conductive metal first leads (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads, lead ends; Fig. 4, elements 78, 80, 114, respectively, make up conductive metal first leads) along the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows 78, 80, and 114, along the left and right planar sides of 72, see also Fig. 3), each one of the first leads having a first portion (Corisis, lead ends; Fig. 4, element 114) and a second portion (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads; Fig. 4, elements 78 and 80, respectively, make up a second portion), the first portion having a side exposed outside the molded package structure along the first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows a portion of 114 that is outside of the molded package (element 76), and extends along the bottom portion of 72, which is the first side), and the second portion enclosed by the molded package structure and spaced apart from the first side by a non-zero distance (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows the second portion enclosed by the molded package structure and the top side of the second portion of the conductive metal first leads is spaced apart from the bottom planar side of element 72) by a non-zero distance.
Re: Dependent Claim 2, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
wherein the first portion of each one of the first leads (Corisis, lead ends; Fig. 4, element 114) extends outward from the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) by another non-zero distance along a respective one of the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows element 114 extending past a portion of the molded package structure (element 74), along the left and right planar directions of element 72).
Re: Dependent Claim 3, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
the opposite third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left planar portion of element 72 can be considered a third side, the right planar portion of element 72 can be considered a fourth side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a first direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction);
the electronic device (Corisis, semiconductor device; Fig. 4, element 70) further comprises opposite fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) spaced apart from one another along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the into the page/out of the page direction (y-axis), can be considered a second direction, which is orthogonal to the first direction);
the first and second sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, the top planar portion of element 72 can be considered a second side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a third direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction, and the first side and second side are vertically separated along this direction) that is orthogonal to the first and second directions (Corisis, Fig. 4, the z-direction is orthogonal to the x and y directions); and
the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) is at a non-zero angle to the third direction along the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, a portion of the molded package structure (element 76) is at a 90-degree angle relative to the third direction along the third and fourth sides).
Re: Dependent Claim 4, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
further comprising conductive metal second leads (Corisis, wires; Fig. 4, element 98) exposed outside the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, a portion of the wires have a component of wire in the x direction (Corisis, Fig. 3, the left right direction is the x direction), each one of the second leads having a lateral side exposed outside the molded package structure along a respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites, Fig. 3 shows element 98 having a lateral side exposed along the front face of element 72, which is the fifth side), and the lateral side of the individual second leads being flush with a respective side of the molded package structure along the respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 3, shows the wires (98) flush with the bond pads (element 84) which are along the front side of element 72, which is the fifth side).
Re: Dependent Claim 5, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 4 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
wherein the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) is planar and extends in a plane of the first (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction) and third directions (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction).
Re: Dependent Claim 6, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
the opposite third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left planar portion of element 72 can be considered a third side, the right planar portion of element 72 can be considered a fourth side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a first direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction);
the electronic device (Corisis, semiconductor device; Fig. 4, element 70) further comprises opposite fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) spaced apart from one another along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (Corsis, Fig. 4, the into the page/out of the page direction (y-axis), can be considered a second direction, which is orthogonal to the first direction);
the first and second sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, the top planar portion of element 72 can be considered a second side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a third direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction, and the first side and second side are vertically separated along this direction) that is orthogonal to the first and second directions (Corisis, Fig 4, the z-direction is orthogonal to the x and y directions); and
the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) is at a non-zero angle to the third direction along the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, a portion of the molded package structure (element 76) is at a 90-degree angle relative to the third direction along the third and fourth sides).
Re: Dependent Claim 7, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
wherein the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) is planar and extends in a plane of the first (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction) and third directions (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction).
Re: Dependent Claim 8, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
opposite fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites); and
conductive metal second leads (Corisis, wires; Fig. 4, element 98) exposed outside the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, a portion of the wires have a component of wire in the x direction (Corisis, Fig. 3, the left right direction is the x direction), each one of the second leads having a lateral side exposed outside the molded package structure along a respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites, Fig. 3 shows element 98 having a lateral side exposed along the front face of element 72, which is the fifth side), and the lateral side of the individual second leads being flush with a respective side of the molded package structure along the respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 3, shows the wires (98) flush with the bond pads (element 84) which are along the front side of element 72, which is the fifth side).
Re: Dependent Claim 9, Corisis disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
the semiconductor die (Corisis, semiconductor die; Fig. 4, element 72) has a first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom portion of element 72 can be considered a first side) with a conductive terminal (Corisis, conductive wires; Fig. 4, element 98) and an opposite second side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the top part of element 72 can be considered an opposite second side), the backside metal structure (Corisis, third set; Fig. 4, element 104, ¶ [0035]) extending along the second side of the semiconductor die; and
the conductive terminal is connected to the second portion of one of the first leads (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads; Fig. 4, elements 78 and 80, respectively, make up a second portion, and element 98 is connected to at least one of the second portion of the first leads).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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) 10-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corisis (US 20020195694 A1) in view of Mangrum (US 9153543 B1).
Re: Independent Claim 10, Corisis discloses:
opposite first and second sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, the top planar portion of element 72 can be considered a second side, and they are opposites);
opposite third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left planar portion of element 72 can be considered a third side, the right planar portion of element 72 can be considered a fourth side, and they are opposites);
a molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]);
a semiconductor die (Corisis, semiconductor die; Fig. 4, element 72) having a backside metal structure (Corisis, third set; Fig. 4, element 104, ¶ [0035]) exposed outside the molded package structure along the second side (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows 104 extended along the top planar side of 72), and
conductive metal first leads (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads, lead ends; Fig. 4, elements 78, 80, 114, respectively, make up conductive metal first leads) along the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows 78, 80, and 114, along the left and right planar sides of 72, see also Fig. 3), each one of the first leads having a first portion (Corisis, lead ends; Fig. 4, element 114) and a second portion (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads; Fig. 4, elements 78 and 80, respectively, make up a second portion), the first portion having a side exposed outside the molded package structure along the first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows a portion of 114 that is outside of the molded package (element 76), and connected to a respective one of the conductive metal pads (Corisis, second set; Fig. 4, element 102) along the first side, and the second portion enclosed by the molded package structure and spaced apart from the first side by a non-zero distance (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows the second portion enclosed by the molded package structure and the top side of the second portion of the conductive metal first leads is horizontally spaced apart from the bottom planar side of element 72) by a non-zero distance.
Corisis does not explicitly disclose:
a circuit board having conductive metal pads; and
an electronic device attached to the circuit board and comprising:
Mangrum discloses:
a circuit board (Mangrum, PCB; Col. 8, lines 20-29) having conductive metal pads (Mangrum, electrical circuit and die pad; Fig. 2, element 14, Col. 8, lines 20-29); and
an electronic device (Mangrum, semiconductor package; Fig. 2, element 10 or Fig. 4, element 100) attached to the circuit board (Mangrum, Col. 8, lines 20-55).
Corisis discloses a substrate, but does not explicitly disclose this substrate to be a circuit board with conductive metal pads. Mangrum discloses an electronic device containing a semiconductor die and an underlying substrate, such as a PCB (Mangrum, Col. 1, lines 26-30), with an electrical circuit between the die and the PCB for use in a packaging structure. Corisis and Mangrum both disclose semiconductor packaging structures for electronic devices and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date to attach the circuit board having an electrical circuit, as disclosed by Mangrum, to the packaging structure, as disclosed by Corisis, for the benefit of shielding and equalizing the electric potential across the electronic device (Mangrum, Col.8, lines 20-55).
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
wherein the first portion of each one of the first leads (Corisis, lead ends; Fig. 4, element 114) extends outward from the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) by another non-zero distance along a respective one of the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, shows element 114 extending past a portion of the molded package structure (element 74), along the left and right planar directions of element 72).
Re: Dependent Claim 12, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
the opposite third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left planar portion of element 72 can be considered a third side, the right planar portion of element 72 can be considered a fourth side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a first direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction);
the electronic device (Corisis, semiconductor device; Fig. 4, element 70) further comprises opposite fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) spaced apart from one another along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (Corsis, Fig. 4, the into the page/out of the page direction (y-axis), can be considered a second direction, which is orthogonal to the first direction);
the first and second sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, the top planar portion of element 72 can be considered a second side, and they are opposites) are spaced apart from one another along a third direction (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction, and the first side and second side are vertically separated along this direction) that is orthogonal to the first and second directions (Corisis, Fig 4, the z-direction is orthogonal to the x and y directions); and
the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) is at a non-zero angle to the third direction along the third and fourth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, a portion of the molded package structure (element 76) is at a 90-degree angle relative to the third direction along the third and fourth sides).
Re: Dependent Claim 13, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
wherein the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites) is planar and extends in a plane of the first (Corisis, Fig. 4, the left-right horizontal axis (x-axis) can be considered a first direction) and third directions (Corisis, Fig. 4, the up/down direction (z-axis) can be considered a third direction).
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
opposite fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites); and
conductive metal second leads (Corisis, wires; Fig. 4, element 98) exposed outside the molded package structure (Corisis, substrate, lead frame; Fig. 4, elements 74 and 76, respectively, can be considered a molded package structure, ¶ [0041]) along the first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom planar portion of element 72 can be considered a first side, a portion of the wires have a component of wire in the x direction (Corisis, Fig. 3, the left right direction is the x direction), each one of the second leads having a lateral side exposed outside the molded package structure along a respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 4, the front planar surface of element 72 can be considered a fifth side, the back planar surface of element 72 can be considered a sixth side, and they are opposites, Fig. 3 shows element 98 having a lateral side exposed along the front face of element 72, which is the fifth side), and the lateral side of the individual second leads being flush with a respective side of the molded package structure along the respective one of the fifth and sixth sides (Corisis, Fig. 3, shows the wires (98) flush with the bond pads (element 84) which are along the front side of element 72, which is the fifth side).
Re: Dependent Claim 15, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
the semiconductor die (Corisis, semiconductor die; Fig. 4, element 72) has a first side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the bottom portion of element 72 can be considered a first side) with a conductive terminal (Corisis, conductive wires; Fig. 4, element 98) and an opposite second side (Corisis, Fig. 4, the top part of element 72 can be considered an opposite second side), the backside metal structure (Corisis, third set; Fig. 4, element 104, ¶ [0035]) extending along the second side of the semiconductor die; and
the conductive terminal is connected to the second portion of one of the first leads (Corisis, inner leads, outer leads; Fig. 4, elements 78 and 80, respectively, make up a second portion, and element 98 is connected to at least one of the second portion of the first leads).
Re: Dependent Claim 16, Corisis and Mangrum disclose all the limitations of claim 10 on which this claim depends. Corisis further discloses:
further comprising a heat sink (Corisis, intervening insulative layer; Fig. 4, element 92, ¶ [0040] and [0044]) attached to the backside metal structure (Corisis, third set; Fig. 4, element 104, ¶ [0035]) of the semiconductor die (Corisis, semiconductor die; Fig. 4, element 72).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-7679. The examiner can normally be reached usually Monday - Thursday, 6:45 AM - 4:45 PM (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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights