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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) The applicant argues that the Yu reference does not disclose the features of previous claim 5 (now incorporated into claim 1). It is noted that Paragraph 153 of Yu discloses that the layer 221 can be formed on four or more surface of the lead, and Fig 10 depicts the layer on each side surface of 222. Hence, the examiner maintains that Yu teaches the features of previous claim 5.
(B) The applicant argues that the Yu reference does not teach the new limitation “each lead has no portion extending to the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer.” This limitation has been rejected under USC 112, because in the present application, clearly the leads 12 have portions that extend to and extend from the encapsulant layer 40 (see Figs. 7A-7C). Due to the limitation being contradictory to the application, it is unclear how to interpret the limitation consistent with the application. It is possible that the intended meaning of the limitation is that each lead has no portion that is flush with a side surface of the encapsulating; or that each lead does not have portions extending to each of the side surfaces. Each of these of these possible interpretations is disclosed by the Yu references as explained in the rejection below.
It is noted that the amendments overcome the rejection based on the Liao reference, which has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “each lead has no portion extending to the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer.” However, the figures of the present application clearly depict that the leads 12 have portions that extend to and extend from the encapsulant layer 40 (see Figs. 7A-7C). Hence, the amendment is not supported by the specification or figures and is directed to new matter.
Each of the dependent claims is also rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, because dependent claims inherit the rejected limitations by rule.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al (U.S. Pub #2022/0246501).
With respect to claim 1, Yu teaches a flat semiconductor package comprising:
a die pad (Figs. 7-10, 210) having a top surface and a bottom surface;
a die attached on the top surface of the die pad (Paragraph 155);
multiple leads (Fig. 7-10, 220) distributed around the die pad and electrically connected to the die, each lead having a top surface, a bottom surface, two opposite side surfaces, and an end surface; and
a tin layer (Fig. 9-10, 221 and Paragraph 158) is formed on the top surface, the bottom surface and the two opposite side surfaces of each lead (Paragraph 153: the layer 221 can be formed on four or more surface of the lead, and Fig 10 depicts the layer on each side surface of 222); and
the end surface (Figs. 9-10, 222 and Paragraph 155) of each lead is formed by cutting and not covered by the tin layer (Paragraph 156)
an encapsulant layer (Fig. 7-10, 230 and Paragraph 154) covering the die pad, the die and a portion of each lead, the encapsulant layer having a top surface, a bottom surface and four side surfaces;
wherein all of the top surface, the bottom surface, the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer are flat surfaces (Figs. 7-10, 230);
the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer are perpendicular to the top surface and the bottom surface of the encapsulant layer; and
the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220) laterally protrude from the encapsulant layer without being bent and
each lead has no portion extending to the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer (See claim interpretation discussion above. Figs. 7-10 none of the leads extend to each of the side surfaces of 230. Furthermore, Yu also discloses that the leads can be formed to have no portion that is flush with a side of 230, e.g. Figs. 39, 41, 67, 74, etc.).
With respect to claim 2, Yu teaches that the encapsulant layer has a substantial flat cuboid configuration (Figs. 7-10, 230); and the
bottom surfaces of the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220), the bottom surface of the encapsulant layer and the bottom surface of the die pad (Figs. 7-10, 210) are coplanar.
With respect to claim 3, Yu teaches that the multiple leads are electrically connected to the die through conductive wires (Paragraph 200, “wire bonding between the semiconductor die and the protruding leads”).
With respect to claim 9, Yu teaches that the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220) protrude from two opposite ones of the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer (Figs. 7-10, 230).
With respect to claim 10, Yu teaches that the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220) protrude from two opposite ones of the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer (Figs. 7-10, 230).
With respect to claim 11, Yu teaches that the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220) protrude from two opposite ones of the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer (Figs. 7-10, 230).
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.
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Tsui et al (U.S. Pub #2013/0017652).
With respect to claim 4, Yu does not teach that the multiple leads are electrically connected to the die through conductive clips.
Tsui teaches a flat package, wherein multiple leads (Fig. 8A, 224) are electrically connected to the die through conductive clips (Fig. 8A, 228 and 232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to electrically connect the die of Yu to the multiple leads through clips as taught by Tsui in order to reduce the resistance of the connection (Paragraph 104).
With respect to claim 8, Yu teaches that a tin layer (Fig. 9-10, 221 and Paragraph 158) is formed on the top surface, the bottom surface and the two opposite side surfaces of each lead; and
the end surface (Figs. 9-10, 222 and Paragraph 155) of each lead is formed by cutting and not covered by the tin layer (Paragraph 156).
With respect to claim 12, Yu teaches that the multiple leads (Figs. 7-10, 220) protrude from two opposite ones of the four side surfaces of the encapsulant layer (Figs. 7-10, 230).
With respect to claim 17, Yu does not depict the thickness of the die pad, and hence does not explicitly disclose that each of the multiple leads and the die pad have the same thickness.
Tsui teaches that each of the multiple leads and the die pad have the same thickness (Fig. 8A, 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the die pad and multiple leads of Yu to have the same thickness as taught by Tsui in order to allow the die pad to conduct heat (Paragraph 137).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Do et al (U.S. Pub #2009/0127680).
With respect to claim 13, Yu does not teach a metal heat dissipation layer is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer.
Do teaches a metal heat dissipation layer (Fig. 12, 1204) is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer (Fig. 12, 1202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a heat dissipation layer over the top surface of the encapsulant layer of Yu as taught by Do in order to enhance thermal transfer (Paragraph 94).
With respect to claim 14, Yu does not teach a metal heat dissipation layer is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer.
Do teaches a metal heat dissipation layer (Fig. 12, 1204) is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer (Fig. 12, 1202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a heat dissipation layer over the top surface of the encapsulant layer of Yu as taught by Do in order to enhance thermal transfer (Paragraph 94).
With respect to claim 15, Yu does not teach a metal heat dissipation layer is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer.
Do teaches a metal heat dissipation layer (Fig. 12, 1204) is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer (Fig. 12, 1202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a heat dissipation layer over the top surface of the encapsulant layer of Yu as taught by Do in order to enhance thermal transfer (Paragraph 94).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Tsui, in view of Do et al (U.S. Pub #2009/0127680).
With respect to claim 16, Yu does not teach a metal heat dissipation layer is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer.
Do teaches a metal heat dissipation layer (Fig. 12, 1204) is formed over the top surface of the encapsulant layer (Fig. 12, 1202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a heat dissipation layer over the top surface of the encapsulant layer of Yu as taught by Do in order to enhance thermal transfer (Paragraph 94).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights