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 .
Status of Claims
Applicants’ election of invention I drawn to claims 1-15 and species 4 drawn to Figure 2D are acknowledged. Claims 16-17, drawn to an unelected invention are thus withdrawn from further examination. Claims 1-15 are examined herein.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 and Figure 2D in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) in view of Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) teaches a semiconductor package (electronic semiconductor package 400, Figure 4), comprising: at least one semiconductor die (electronic chip 100, Figure 4, col 9, lines 56-57, teaches It is also depicted in FIG. 1 that the electronic chip coupled to the electric carrier by means of wire bonding) arranged over the first side of the die pad; an encapsulation (encapsulation structure 200, Figure 4, col 9, line 65-66, teaches the electronic chip is molded completely) comprising a first dielectric material (filling particles 704, Figure 7, col 12, lines 30-33, teaches the encapsulation structure, which is formed by filling particles (as a precursor component for forming the encapsulation structure)) and encapsulating the at least one semiconductor die, wherein the second side of the die pad is at least partially exposed from the encapsulation (Figure 4, col 9, lines 65-67, teaches the electronic chip is molded completely and the electrical carrier partially with an encapsulation structure); and a contiguous isolation structure (thermal interface structure 402, Figure 4, col 10, lines 36-43 + 59-62, teaches the electronic semiconductor package depicted in FIG. 4, the discontinuity and a volume connected thereto, which adjoins the exposed surface section of the electrical carrier, are filled with an electrically insulating and thermally well-conducting thermal interface structure (thermal interface material, TIM), which is formed to provide a thermal coupling between the electrical carrier...The thermal interface structure can have a solid body layer of resin with embedded filling particles or, alternately, can be shaped from a formless material (for example, a paste)) comprising a second dielectric material different from the first dielectric material and covering the second side of the die pad, wherein the encapsulation comprises at least one first trench (discontinuity 300, Figure 3, col 10, lines 11-13, teaches the discontinuity, whereby a flow of encapsulation material into the discontinuity during the encapsulation is precluded) arranged along at least a part of a contour of the second side of the die pad, wherein the at least one first trench and the at least one second trench are filled by the contiguous isolation structure (Figure 4, col 10, lines 37-42, teaches the discontinuity and a volume connected thereto, which adjoins the exposed surface section of the electrical carrier, are filled with an electrically insulating and thermally well-conducting thermal interface structure (thermal interface material, TIM)), as claimed.
Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) is silent to teach a die pad comprising a first side, an opposite second side, and lateral sides connecting the first and second sides; and wherein the second side of the die pad comprises at least one second trench arranged along at least a part of the contour of the second side of the die pad.
In an analogous art, Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teaches a die pad (die pad 31, Figure 9, paragraphs 0019-0020, teaches Each unit lead frame includes a die pad formed with a plurality of grooves. The die pad further includes a plurality of leads and a plurality of tie bars. The die pad of each unit lead frame has a square die-attach section, a plurality of extension sections, and a plurality of flap sections) comprising a first side (top surface 3111, Figure 9, paragraph 0021, teaches The die-attach section is disposed below the upper surface of the interconnecting web portion, and has a top surface for carrying a die), an opposite second side (first bottom surface 3112, Figure 9, paragraphs 0021, teaches a first bottom surface opposite to the top surface, and at least one indentation recessed from the first bottom surface of the die-attach section), and lateral sides (extension sections 312 + flap sections 313, Figure 9, paragraphs 0020 + 0022, teaches each unit lead frame has a square die-attach section, a plurality of extension sections, and a plurality of flap sections...Each extension section is bent at an angle from a periphery of the die-attach section to project upward and projects upward...Each flap section extends from an end of a respective one of the extension sections that is distal from the die-attach section, and are parallel to and spaced apart from (i.e., not connected to) the leads. It should be noted that the extension sections should at least formed on two opposite sides of the die-attach section) connecting the first and second sides; and wherein the second side of the die pad comprises at least one second trench (groove 32 + indentation 314, Figure 9, paragraph 0025 + 0021, teaches The grooves are formed at an underside of junctions of the die-attach section and the extension sections. Each groove recessed from both the first bottom surface of the die-attach section and the second bottom surface of a respective one of the extension sections...at least one indentation recessed from the first bottom surface of the die-attach section) arranged along at least a part of the contour of the second side of the die pad, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) by having the die pad of Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) thereby having a die pad with trenches capable of acting as stress relief points which prevent a tear in the thermal interface structure.
Regarding claim 8, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) further wherein the at least one first trench (Figure 3) and the at least one second trench (Figure 6) have identical cross sections.
PNG
media_image1.png
285
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench has a depth in a range of 0.1mm to 0.5mm (Figure 3, col 4, lines 16-28 + 48-61, teaches According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of a protrusion formed inversely to the discontinuity on an encapsulation tool (or in a cavity of such an encapsulation tool), whereby a flow of encapsulation material into the discontinuity is precluded. After the curing of the encapsulation material introduced into the encapsulation tool in a fluid state, the electronic semiconductor package or a preform of the same can be removed from the encapsulation tool and can already have the desired discontinuity at this time, owing to the protrusion in the encapsulation tool. With such a molded variant, a dimension of 200×200 μm (width×depth) of the furrows can be realized with 20° mold inclines...According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of at least one of the group consisting of a laser treatment, grinding, scraping, plasma treatment and etching. The laser treatment can be performed, in particular, by laser grooving and can, for example, result in dimensions of 200 μm×100 μm (width×depth). The laser treatment can also be by laser roughening, with which, for example, the dimensions of the discontinuity can be adjusted to 200 μm×30 μm or 200 μm×10 μm (width×depth). To form the discontinuity, the material can thus be removed by a chemical method (for example, wet etching or plasma etching) and/or by a physical method (for example, material removal by mechanical treatment or by treatment with high-energy radiation). MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 9, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the depth is in a range of 0.18mm to 0.22mm (Figure 3, col 4, lines 16-28 + 48-61, teaches According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of a protrusion formed inversely to the discontinuity on an encapsulation tool (or in a cavity of such an encapsulation tool), whereby a flow of encapsulation material into the discontinuity is precluded. After the curing of the encapsulation material introduced into the encapsulation tool in a fluid state, the electronic semiconductor package or a preform of the same can be removed from the encapsulation tool and can already have the desired discontinuity at this time, owing to the protrusion in the encapsulation tool. With such a molded variant, a dimension of 200×200 μm (width×depth) of the furrows can be realized with 20° mold inclines...According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of at least one of the group consisting of a laser treatment, grinding, scraping, plasma treatment and etching. The laser treatment can be performed, in particular, by laser grooving and can, for example, result in dimensions of 200 μm×100 μm (width×depth). The laser treatment can also be by laser roughening, with which, for example, the dimensions of the discontinuity can be adjusted to 200 μm×30 μm or 200 μm×10 μm (width×depth). To form the discontinuity, the material can thus be removed by a chemical method (for example, wet etching or plasma etching) and/or by a physical method (for example, material removal by mechanical treatment or by treatment with high-energy radiation). MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench has a width in a range of 0.1mm to 0.5mm (Figure 3, col 4, lines 16-28 + 48-61, teaches According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of a protrusion formed inversely to the discontinuity on an encapsulation tool (or in a cavity of such an encapsulation tool), whereby a flow of encapsulation material into the discontinuity is precluded. After the curing of the encapsulation material introduced into the encapsulation tool in a fluid state, the electronic semiconductor package or a preform of the same can be removed from the encapsulation tool and can already have the desired discontinuity at this time, owing to the protrusion in the encapsulation tool. With such a molded variant, a dimension of 200×200 μm (width×depth) of the furrows can be realized with 20° mold inclines...According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of at least one of the group consisting of a laser treatment, grinding, scraping, plasma treatment and etching. The laser treatment can be performed, in particular, by laser grooving and can, for example, result in dimensions of 200 μm×100 μm (width×depth). The laser treatment can also be by laser roughening, with which, for example, the dimensions of the discontinuity can be adjusted to 200 μm×30 μm or 200 μm×10 μm (width×depth). To form the discontinuity, the material can thus be removed by a chemical method (for example, wet etching or plasma etching) and/or by a physical method (for example, material removal by mechanical treatment or by treatment with high-energy radiation). MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 11, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the width is in a range of 0.2mm to 0.24mm (Figure 3, col 4, lines 16-28 + 48-61, teaches According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of a protrusion formed inversely to the discontinuity on an encapsulation tool (or in a cavity of such an encapsulation tool), whereby a flow of encapsulation material into the discontinuity is precluded. After the curing of the encapsulation material introduced into the encapsulation tool in a fluid state, the electronic semiconductor package or a preform of the same can be removed from the encapsulation tool and can already have the desired discontinuity at this time, owing to the protrusion in the encapsulation tool. With such a molded variant, a dimension of 200×200 μm (width×depth) of the furrows can be realized with 20° mold inclines...According to an exemplary embodiment, the discontinuity can be formed by means of at least one of the group consisting of a laser treatment, grinding, scraping, plasma treatment and etching. The laser treatment can be performed, in particular, by laser grooving and can, for example, result in dimensions of 200 μm×100 μm (width×depth). The laser treatment can also be by laser roughening, with which, for example, the dimensions of the discontinuity can be adjusted to 200 μm×30 μm or 200 μm×10 μm (width×depth). To form the discontinuity, the material can thus be removed by a chemical method (for example, wet etching or plasma etching) and/or by a physical method (for example, material removal by mechanical treatment or by treatment with high-energy radiation). MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the lateral sides of the die pad comprise a step, and wherein the at least one first trench is arranged above the step (Figure 4), as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
129
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed. Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) further teaches wherein the first dielectric material comprises silica based filler particles (col 3 lines 45-46 + col 7 lines 22-24, teaches The encapsulation material (for example, plastic material)...The filling materials can have, for example, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, boron nitride, silicon carbide, silicon nitride and/or diamond), and wherein the second dielectric material comprises alumina based filler particles (col 3 lines 47-50 + col 7 lines 19-24, teaches the material of the thermal interface structure...which can, for example, have aluminum nitride or boron nitride...The thermal interface structure can be formed, for example, from a mixture of a resin and filling materials. The resin can be silicon-based, for example, epoxy-based and/or thermoplastic-based. The filling materials can have, for example, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, boron nitride, silicon carbide, silicon nitride and/or diamond), as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) in view of Seo (Korean Patent Application Publication 2000-0020858U).
Regarding claim 2, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 1, as claimed.
Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) are silent to teach wherein the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench is arranged along 50% or more of the contour of the second side of the die pad.
In an analogous art, Seo (Korean Patent Application Publication 2000-0020858U) teaches wherein the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench is arranged along 50% or more of the contour of the second side of the die pad (groove 212, Figure 4C, page 3, paragraph 8, line 2, teaches forming a groove along the outer circumference of the die pad. MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) with the teachings of Seo (Korean Patent Application Publication 2000-0020858U) thereby having a trench arranged along 50% or more of the die pad contour.
Regarding claim 3, Fuergut (US Patent No 9,437,513) and Huang (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0093494A1) teach the semiconductor package of claim 2, as claimed. Seo (Korean Patent Application Publication 2000-0020858U) further teaches wherein the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench is arranged along 80% or more of the contour of the second side of the die pad (groove 212, Figure 4C, page 3, paragraph 8, line 2, teaches forming a groove along the outer circumference of the die pad. MPEP 2144.05(I) states, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)), as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of the at least one first trench and the at least one second trench are arranged equidistant from the contour within a margin of no more than 50µm in claim 4.
The wherein the at least one first trench and the at least one second trench are arranged equidistant from the contour within a margin of no more than 20µm in claim 5, dependent on claim 4.
Parts of identical lengths of the at least one first trench and the at least one second trench have identical volumes within a margin of no more than 50% in claim 6.
The parts of identical lengths of the at least one first trench and the at least one second trench have identical volumes within a margin of no more than 30% in claim 7, dependent on claim 6.
The distance of the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench from the contour of the second side of the die pad is in a range of 50% to 500% of a depth of the at least one first trench and/or the at least one second trench in 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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM M MOHAMED-ALY whose telephone number is (571)270-0312. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, 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.
/KAREEM M MOHAMED-ALY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights