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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Semiconductor Device with Reverse and Obverse Surfaces.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii (JP2016201447A).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujii discloses a semiconductor device (mold package [0011] Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) comprising:
a semiconductor element (semiconductor chip 30 [0012]);
a first lead (die pad 10 [0012]) on which the semiconductor element (30) is mounted; and
a sealing resin (mold resin 40 [0012]) covering the semiconductor element (30) and a part of the first lead (10),
wherein the first lead (10) includes:
a first obverse surface (front surface shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) to which the semiconductor element (30) is bonded;
a first reverse surface (rear surface shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) facing away from the first obverse surface (front surface shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) in a thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) of the first lead (10) and exposed from the sealing resin (40); and
an internal reverse surface (uneven portions 14 [0041]) facing a same side as a side that the first reverse surface (rear surface shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) faces in the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and covered with the sealing resin (40), the internal reverse surface (uneven portions 14) including an irregular portion (the examiner notes that uneven portions 14 represent an irregular portion in the broadest reasonable interpretation of irregular).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the irregular portion (uneven portions 14) includes a plurality of recesses (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) recessed toward a side that the first obverse surface (front surface shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) faces.
PNG
media_image2.png
554
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 2 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein, in an extension direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) orthogonal to the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and going from the first reverse surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) toward an outer edge, the plurality of recesses (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) have a larger dimension in the extension direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) at a location closer to the outer edge.
PNG
media_image2.png
554
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 3 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the plurality of recesses (shown above in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) are substantially the same (shown in Fig 2) in a first dimension in a direction (vertical direction shown in annotated Fig 2) orthogonal to the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and the extension direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
956
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 2 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the plurality of recesses (shown above in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) are arranged in a matrix (recesses shown above in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees would form a matrix when viewed in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 2 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the plurality of recesses (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) are substantially the same in a second dimension (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) in the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees).
PNG
media_image4.png
642
1121
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the irregular portion (uneven portions 14) includes a plurality of protrusions (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) protruding toward the side that the first reverse surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) faces.
PNG
media_image5.png
628
1168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the first lead (10) further includes an internal connection surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) connected to the first reverse surface (shown above in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and the internal reverse surface (uneven portions 14), and the internal connection surface (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) is flat and generally orthogonal to the first reverse surface (shown above in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and the internal reverse surface (uneven portions 14).
PNG
media_image6.png
556
1255
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 1 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein an area of the semiconductor element (30) as viewed in the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) is equal to or greater than 50% of an area of the first lead (10) as viewed in the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (JP2016201447A).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujii discloses the limitations of claim 4 as explained above. Fujii further discloses
wherein the first dimension (vertical direction shown in annotated Fig 2) is approximately equal to or greater than 10% and approximately equal to or less than 30% of a dimension (shown in annotated Fig 2) in the extension direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) of the internal reverse surface (uneven portions 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
956
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fujii, since the drawing are not necessarily drawn to scale, does not directly disclose
wherein the first dimension is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or less than 30% of a dimension in the extension direction of the internal reverse surface.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the size of a dimension in the extension direction and the orthogonal direction is a result effective variable in that having a first dimension equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or less than 30% would be advantageous in meeting rectangular requirements of a rectangular shaped package that contains a rectangular shaped semiconductor chip and have a plurality of recesses.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujii to include wherein the first dimension is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or less than 30% of a dimension in the extension direction of the internal reverse surface in order to meet rectangular requirements of a rectangular shaped package that contains a rectangular shaped semiconductor chip and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05) and further because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the size of a dimension in the orthogonal direction relative to a size of a dimension in the extension direction since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04.IV(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, and 13-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8: The prior art does not anticipate or render obvious, alone or in combination, that “wherein the second dimension is equal to or greater than 1% and equal to or less than 5% of a dimension from the first obverse surface to the first reverse surface in the thickness direction,” in the combination required by the claim.
Claim 10: The prior art does not anticipate or render obvious, alone or in combination, that “wherein the irregular portion is disposed over almost an entire area of the internal reverse surface,” in the combination required by the claim.
Claim 13: Regarding Claim 13, Fujii (JP2016201447A) discloses
wherein the irregular portion (uneven portions 14) includes: a plurality of first recesses (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) extending in a first direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) orthogonal to the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and arranged along a second direction (shown in annotated Fig 3) orthogonal to the thickness direction (vertical direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and the first direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees);
a plurality of first protrusions (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) located between the first recesses (shown in annotated Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees) and extending in the first direction (horizontal direction shown in Fig 3 viewed from 90 degrees).
PNG
media_image6.png
556
1255
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The reason for the indication of allowability of Claim 13 is the inclusion of
a plurality of second protrusions formed in each of the first recesses and arranged along the first direction.
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 14 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 16 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 15.
Claim 17 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 18 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 19 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 20 would be allowable base on its dependency on claim 13.
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.”
Related Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mori et al (JP2012028822) which discloses a plurality of protrusions (roughening surface [Abstract]) shown in Fig 2, and Hasegawa et al (US 2013/0127034) which discloses a semiconductor device with a plurality of grooves 325 [0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PAUL SEDOROOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am -5pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached on (571) 270-1402. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812