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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/561,720 filed on November 16, 2023.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
5. 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: “OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT COMPRISING PLURALITY OF METALLIC LEAD FRAME PARTS AND PANEL”.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 30-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claims should be recited to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages/phrases:
18. (Currently Amended) An optoelectronic semiconductor device comprising:
a carrier;
an optoelectronic semiconductor chip configured to generate radiation and attached to a mounting side of the carrier; and
an encapsulation body at least partially transparent to the radiation,
wherein the carrier is composed of a plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts and of a potting body, the potting body holding the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts together,
wherein the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts project beyond the potting body at the mounting side, wherein an attachment side of the carrier is opposite the mounting side so that the mounting side is further away from the attachment side than sides of the potting body facing away from the attachment side,
wherein the attachment side is configured for surface mounting,
wherein, as seen in a plan view of the attachment side, the potting body projects over the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts on all sides,
wherein, on the attachment side, the potting body and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts are flush with one another, or the potting body projects beyond the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts, and
wherein, concerning dielectric solids, side surfaces of the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts are covered directly exclusively by the potting body or by the potting body together with the encapsulation body.
19. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18,
wherein the carrier further comprises a plurality of metallizations,
wherein the plurality of metallizations partially form the mounting side and/or the attachment side, and
wherein each start from an associated one of the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts and extend directly onto the potting body.
22. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18, wherein the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts are wider outside the potting body than inside the potting body as viewed in a direction parallel to the attachment side.
23. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18, wherein, on the mounting side, the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts are directly surrounded all around by the potting body.
25. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18, wherein the potting body is of one-piece fashion and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts have a thickness of at most 0.5mm.
26. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18, wherein, as seen in plan view on the attachment side, a distance between an outer outline of the carrier and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts is at least 10µm and at most 1 mm all around.
30. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 18, further comprising:
a further lead frame part,
wherein the further lead frame part is thinner than the carrier, and
wherein the further lead frame part is made of the same material as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts.
31. (Currently Amended) The optoelectronic semiconductor device according to claim 30, wherein the further lead frame part is electrically non-functional and electrically isolated from the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts.
32. (Currently Amended) A panel carrying a plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor devices according to claim 18, the panel comprising:
a plurality of component units such that each of the plurality of component units is provided with one of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor devices,
wherein the potting body extends continuously across all of the plurality of component units of a component group.
33. (Currently Amended) The panel according to claim 32,
wherein the panel comprises a plurality of the component groups such that each of the plurality of component groups includes a plurality of the component units, and
wherein a metallic support bar is located between at least some adjacent component groups and extends continuously along a plurality of the component groups.
34. (Currently Amended) The panel according to claim 33, wherein the metallic support bar is of the same material as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts and is at least as thick as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts.
35. (Currently Amended) The panel according to claim 34,
wherein the metallic support bar comprises a plurality of anchoring bays as viewed in plan view of the attachment sides of adjacent ones of the plurality of component units, and
wherein the potting body engages in the plurality of anchoring bays.
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 18-19, 22-23, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2012/0175657 A1).
Regarding independent claim 18, Chen et al. teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor device (Fig. 4) comprising:
a carrier (211, para [0030]: 213-216);
an optoelectronic semiconductor chip (22, para [0030]) configured to generate radiation and attached to a mounting side (upper side) of the carrier (211: 213-216); and
an encapsulation body (23, para [0030]) at least partially transparent (para [0030]) to the radiation,
wherein the carrier (211: 213-216) is composed of a plurality of separate, metallic (made of metal plate 5, para [0039]) lead frame parts (211: 213-216) and of a potting body (212, para [0029]), the potting body holding the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (213-216) together,
wherein the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) project beyond the potting body (212) at the mounting side (upper side), wherein an attachment side (bottom side) of the carrier (211: 213-216) is opposite the mounting side (upper side) so that the mounting side is further away from the attachment side (bottom side) than sides of the potting body (212) facing away from the attachment side,
wherein the attachment side (bottom side) is configured for surface mounting,
wherein, as seen in a plan view (or top side) of the attachment side, the potting body (212) projects over the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) on all sides,
wherein, on the attachment side (bottom side), the potting body (212) and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) are flush (cut) with one another, or the potting body (212) projects beyond the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216), and
wherein, concerning dielectric solids, side surfaces of the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) are covered directly exclusively by the potting body (212) or by the potting body (212) together with the encapsulation body (23).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the carrier (211: 213-216) further comprises a plurality of metallizations (made of metal plate, para [0039]),
wherein the plurality of metallizations partially form the mounting side (upper side) and/or the attachment side (bottom side), and
wherein each start from an associated one (214) of the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) and extend directly onto the potting body (212).
Regarding claim 22, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) are wider outside the potting body (212) than inside the potting body (212) as viewed in a direction (X-direction) parallel to the attachment side (bottom side).
Regarding claim 23, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), on the mounting side (upper side), the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (211: 213-216) are directly surrounded all around by the potting body (212).
Regarding claim 27, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the carrier (211: wherein the upper surface of 216 is flat and planar) is planar, and
wherein the carrier is flat such that, in a direction parallel (x-direction) to the attachment side (bottom side), a lateral extent of the carrier (211) is at least three times greater than a thickness of the carrier in a direction perpendicular to the attachment side (see the annotated figure below: wherein the lateral distance/extent of 211 more than three times than the thickness of the carrier).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the potting body (212) forms a cavity (217 called space, para [0029]) in which the semiconductor optoelectronic chip (22) is mounted such that the potting body (212) projects beyond the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (22) in a direction away from the attachment side (bottom side).
Regarding claim 29, Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the encapsulation body (23) completely covers the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
14. Claims 20-21, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0175657 A1) as applied to claim 18/19 above.
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. discloses a certain distance (see the annotated figure below), at the mounting side, between adjacent metallizations of 216 (left) and 216 (right).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even Chen et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, at the mounting side, the minimum distance between adjacent metallizations is at most 70 µm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘minimum distance between adjacent metallizations’ so that the distance to be within the quoted range, to optimize the device size. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen distance is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. discloses a certain distance (see figure in claim 20), between adjacent lead frame parts (216-216).
Even Chen et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, at the mounting side, the minimum distance between adjacent the lead frame parts is at most 70 µm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘minimum distance between adjacent lead frame parts’ so that the distance to be within the quoted range, to optimize the device size. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen distance is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 25, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), the potting body (212) is of one-piece fashion (see figure in claim 18, wherein 212 is between the lead frame 216 (left) and 216 (right) and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (214/216) have a certain thickness as shown in the following figure.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Even Chen et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts have the thickness of at most 0.5mm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘lead frame parts’ thickness of at most 0.5mm’ to be within the quoted range, to optimize the device thickness. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 26, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 4), as seen in plan view on the attachment side, a visible certain distance between an outer outline of the carrier and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (213-216) is disclosed in the following annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Even Chen et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, the distance between an outer outline of the carrier and the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts is at least 10µm and at most 1 mm all around. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘distance’ to be within the quoted range, to optimize the device’s elongated size or form a miniature size. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen distance is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
15. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0175657 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of another embodiment of Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 24, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. is silent to explicitly disclose, the optoelectronic semiconductor chip is a flip chip mounted directly on the mounting side.
Embodiment (Fig. 5, para [0038]) of Chen et al. discloses wherein, the optoelectronic semiconductor chip (22) is a flip chip mounted (flip chip connection) directly on the mounting side (upper side).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by the embodiment (Fig. 5) of Chen et al. while forming the optoelectronic semiconductor device of the Chen et al., in order to reduce the space required for the connection of the light-emitting diode chip 22, therefore, the entire volume or size of the light-emitting diode lamp 2 can be reduced (para [0038]).
16. Claim 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0175657 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schumann et al. (US 2017/0288108 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 from which this claim depends.
Chen et al. is silent to explicitly disclose, a plurality of component units such that each of the plurality of component units is provided with one of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor devices,
wherein the potting body extends continuously across all of the plurality of component units of a component group.
Schumann et al. discloses wherein (Figs. 16-19), a plurality of component units (203) such that each of the plurality of component units is provided with one of the plurality of optoelectronic semiconductor devices (LEDs, para [0099]),
wherein the potting body (305 potting compound, para [0096]) extends continuously (see Fig. 18) across all of the plurality of component units of a component group (see Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Schumann et al. while forming the panel comprising a plurality of LEDs of the Chen et al., in order to form component array arrangement through the display, therefore, forming a reliable display with multiple LEDs.
It is noted that the recitation “a panel” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In this claim, there are not further structural limitations imposed by the “panel” recitation.
Regarding claim 33, Chen et al. and Schumann et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 32 from which this claim depends.
Schumann et al. discloses wherein (Figs. 16-19), the panel comprises a plurality of the component groups (see the annotated figure below) such that each of the plurality of component groups includes a plurality of the component units (see figure below), and
wherein a metallic support bar (407, see Fig. 17) is located between at least some adjacent component groups (see figure below) and extends continuously along a plurality of the component groups.
PNG
media_image5.png
363
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Chen et al. and Schumann et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 33 from which this claim depends.
The combination of Chen et al. and Schumann et al. discloses wherein (Figs. 16-19), the metallic support bar (407, see Fig. 17) is of the same material (copper, para [0090]) as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (213-216) and is at least as thick as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts (213-216).
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 30-31 and 35 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.
Claim 30 recites …. further comprising:
a further lead frame part,
wherein the further lead frame part is thinner than the carrier, and
wherein the further lead frame part is made of the same material as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts.
Claim 35 recites ….the metallic support bar comprises a plurality of anchoring bays as viewed in plan view of the attachment sides of adjacent ones of the plurality of component units, and
wherein the potting body engages in the plurality of anchoring bays.
The prior art, Chen et al. (US 2012/0175657 A1) does not disclose the plurality of anchoring bays when viewed in the plan view of the attachment sides of adjacent ones of the plurality of component units. In addition, the prior art also silent about further lead frame part, and the further lead frame part is made of the same material as the plurality of separate, metallic lead frame parts. Therefore, none of the prior art of references quoted in PTO-892, discloses the limitations of the dependent claims as stated above.
Examiner’s Note
18. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812