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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 14th, 2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katou et al. (US 2005/0253280 A1; hereinafter Katou).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5A and 5B - Katou
Regarding claim 1, Katou teaches a lead frame (Fig. 1-6: lead frame 19; [0078]) comprising:
a die pad (Fig 5: die pad 1) having an upper surface (Fig. 5b: 1a) and a lower surface (Fig. 5b: 1c); and
a curved part disposed outside the die pad in a bottom view (see annotated Fig. 5b: extension member 3 and indent area 1d make up the curved part; [0078]), and
having one end connected to an outer edge of the die pad (Fig. 5a: suspension member connected to die pad at the dotted line), wherein
the curved part has a groove that opens toward the lower surface of the die pad (Fig. 5b: indent 1d; [0079]), and the curved part is curved (Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 2, Katou teaches the lead frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the curved part is curved toward the upper surface of the die pad at an end portion of the groove beside the die pad (see annotated Fig. 5b: the left end of indent 1d ends at the start of support member 3 where the upward curve starts).
Regarding claim 3, Katou teaches the lead frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein an end portion of the groove beside the die pad, in the bottom view, is located on a side of the die pad to which the curved part is connected (see annotated Fig. 5b: right side of the groove is where the curved part is connected and the side of the die pad it is connected to is the bottom side 1c).
Regarding claim 7, Katou teaches the lead frame as claimed in claim 1, comprising:
a plurality of curved parts, wherein the groove is provided in each of the plurality of curved parts (Fig. 5a and b: a plurality of suspension member 3 shown in a top-down view, each one with an indent 1d).
Regarding claim 8, Katou teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 3, 4 and 5: device 100) comprising:
a die pad having an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig. 5b; upper and lower surfaces 1a and 1c);
a curved part disposed outside the die pad in a bottom view (Fig. 5b: suspension member 3), and
having one end connected to an outer edge of the die pad (Fig. 5b:);
a semiconductor chip mounted on the upper surface of the die pad (Fig. 4b: semiconductor element 2; [0088]); and
a resin part encapsulating the semiconductor chip (Fig. 3b and 4b: resin 18 fills space 17 to become encapsulant 6), wherein
the curved part has a groove that opens toward the lower surface of the die pad (Fig. 5b: indent 1d), and
is curved toward the upper surface of the die pad at the groove (Fig. 5b: indent 1d ends at the start of support member 3), and
the lower surface of the die pad is exposed from the resin part (Fig 4b: surface 1c exposed; [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, Katou teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the groove is covered with the resin part ([0098], “indentation 1d permits an excess resin 18 that could not reach the space 17 to be collected into the indentation 1d”, thereby filling the groove 1d with the resin).
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Huang (US 20220093494 A1; herein after Huang).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
978
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 - Huang
Regarding claim 4, Katou does not explicitly teach the lead frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein an end portion of the groove beside the die pad, in the bottom view, is located at a position separated from a side of the die pad to which the curved part is connected.
However, Huang teaches wherein an end portion of the groove beside the die pad (Fig. 4: groove 32), in the bottom view is located at a position separated from a side of the die pad to which the curved part is connected (Fig. 3: the groove 32 is not directly on the side of the die pad, defined as the outer dotted line of the indentation 314; [0020] – [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lead frame of Katou with the lead frame of Huang in order to increase the surface area of the bottom surface that is exposed for the purpose of increasing effective heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 5, Katou does not explicitly teach the lead frame as claimed in claim 4, wherein a region of a lower surface of the curved part located closer to the die pad than to the groove coincides with the lower surface of the die pad.
However, Huang teaches wherein a region of a lower surface of the curved part located closer to the die pad than to the groove coincides with the lower surface of the die pad (Fig. 3 and see annotated Fig. 4: The region of the lower surface of the curved part coincides with the die pad, equivalently the outer dotted line of area 314 in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lead frame of Katou with the lead frame of Huang in order to connect the bottom of the die pad to the curved part while also moving the location of the groove with it when expanding the die pad’s bottom surface area.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Xometry Europe | On-Demand Manufacturing (Xometry Europe | On-Demand Manufacturing. (2022, November 25). Mastering Sheet Metal Bending: Essential DFM Tips for Engineers [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsuLlW-Aby8; hereinafter Xometry).
PNG
media_image3.png
520
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. at time 1:37 - Xometry
Regarding claim 6, Katou does not teach the lead frame as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a recess that is recessed toward a center of the die pad (Fig. 5: die pad 1) and is provided on both sides of a region connected to the curved part in the bottom view, on a side of the die pad.
However, Xometry teaches a recess that is recessed toward a center of the die pad and is provided on both sides of a region connected to the curved part in the bottom view, on a side of the die pad (See annotated fig. - at time 1:37: relief cuts are recessed towards the center on both sided of the curved part).
Xometry also teaches, a relation between the thickness of the metal being bent T and the width of the relief cut W, as well as a relation between the length of the cut L and the radius of the bend R.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lead frame of Katou with the relief cuts of Xometry by scaling down the size of the relief cut to the size of the lead frame in order to prevent deformation of the main body of the die pad when bending the curved portion upwards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0290. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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 HOANG TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights