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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “the semiconductor die comprising at least one magnetic field sensing element […] wherein the magnetic field sensing element” which should be ““the semiconductor die comprising at least one magnetic field sensing element […] wherein the at least one magnetic field sensing element”.
Claim 18 recites in part “wherein the semiconductor die supports at least one magnetic field sensing element, the magnetic field sensing element configured to” which should be “wherein the semiconductor die supports at least one magnetic field sensing element, the at least one magnetic field sensing element configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1,3-4,6-8,12-15,17-18,20-21,23-25,29-32,34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0158765 A1 to Montero et al., “Montero”, in view of US 2021/0223292 A1 to Liu et al., “Liu”.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Montero discloses a package (FIG. 8, ¶ [0059],[0060],[0093]) method of manufacturing a integrated circuit (IC) package comprising:
a lead frame (5,13,14, ¶ [0070], see Examiner-annotated figure below) comprising a die attach paddle (DAP) (portions of 13 and 14) and signal leads (extensions of 13 and 14 and leads 5), the DAP having a first portion with a first DAP surface and a second portion with a second DAP surface, the DAP further comprising a split defined between the first and second portions; and
a semiconductor die (2, ¶ [0065]) having a die surface adjacent to the first DAP surface and the second DAP surface, the semiconductor die comprising at least one magnetic field sensing element (3, ¶ [0062],[0063]) supported by the semiconductor die, wherein the [[at least one]] magnetic field sensing element (3) is configured to sense a magnetic field and generate an output signal.
PNG
media_image1.png
783
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Montero fails to clearly teach wherein the package is a single in-line package (SIP).
Liu teaches (FIG. 2) wherein a package (200) is a single in-line package (SIP) (since leads 30a-30f all face a single direction in a line, ¶ [0043]) including applied to single magnetic sensor elements (¶ [0071]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device or performed the method of Montero by including the sensor in a single in-line package (SIP) as exemplified by Liu in order to improve the mechanical/dimensional/positional tolerances to improve accuracy (Liu ¶ [0007]) and meet creepage requirements for high voltage applications (Liu ¶ [0008]) and/or since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention,
wherein in the instant case one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of and found have found it obvious to apply (B ) simple substitution of a single in-line package of Liu for the package of Montero with the predictable and desirable result of forming a suitable packaging structure.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Montero further teaches wherein the split (see Examiner-annotated figure above) partially separates (since connected between magnetic sensors 3) the first portion (of 13) and the second portion (of 14).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Montero further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic field sensing element (3) is disposed adjacent to the split (see Examiner-annotated figure above).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Montero further teaches wherein the semiconductor die includes (FIG. 8) a first magnetic field sensing element (one of 3) and a second magnetic field sensing element (other 3, ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 6 and the method of claim 23, and Montero further teaches wherein the split has a first width, a second width, and a third width (see Examiner-annotated figure below), the first magnetic field sensing element (e.g. 3 on left) disposed adjacent to the first width and the second magnetic field sensing element (e.g. 3 on right) disposed adjacent to the third width.
PNG
media_image2.png
246
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: claim language is interpreted under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI, MPEP 2111) and since the claim does not clearly specify that the third, second, and third widths are the same or different, the claim as currently written is interpreted as covering wherein the first, second, and third widths are the same.
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 7 and the method of claim 24, and Montero further teaches (see Examiner-annotated figure above) wherein the first width is substantially equal to the third width.
Regarding claims 12 and 29, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Montero further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (2) is electrically coupled to the lead frame (through solder bumps 7).
Regarding claims 13 and 30, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 12 and the method of claim 29, and Montero further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (2) is electrically coupled to the lead frame by one or more wire bonds (“die pads may be connected to the leads by bond wires” ¶ [0067]).
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 13 and the method of claim 30, and Montero further teaches wherein the one or more wire bonds (“die pads may be connected to the leads by bond wires” ¶ [0067]) electrically couple the semiconductor die (2) to each of the signal leads (5).
Regarding claims 15 and 32, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 30, and Montero further teaches wherein the signal leads (5) are adapted to electrically couple the lead frame to a substrate (leads must inherently couple to an underlying substrate, e.g. a printed circuit board or the like) and wherein the magnetic field is orthogonal to the substrate (since orthogonal to semiconductor die, ¶ [0071]).
Regarding claims 17 and 34, Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Montero further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (2) is disposed on the DAP in a chip-on-lead configuration (i.e. chip 2 is mounted onto leads using solder metal bumps 7).
Regarding claim 35, Montero discloses a package with an integrated circuit (IC) (FIG. 8) comprising:
a lead frame (5,13,14, ¶ [0070], see Examiner-annotated figure above) comprising a die attach paddle (DAP) (portions of 13 and 14) and signal leads (extensions of 13 and 14 and leads 5), the DAP having a first portion with a first DAP surface and a second portion with a second DAP surface, the DAP further comprising a split defined between the first and second portions (see Examiner-annotated figure above); and
a semiconductor die (2) having a die surface adjacent to the DAP surface and the second DAP surface, the semiconductor die comprising (FIG. 8) a first magnetic field sensing element (one of 3 ¶ [0062],[0063]) and a second magnetic field sensing element (other 3) supported by the semiconductor die (2), the first magnetic field sensing element and the second magnetic field sensing element disposed adjacent to the split, wherein the first magnetic field sensing element and the second magnetic field sensing element are operable to generate one or more output signals, the one or more output signals indicative of a magnetic field associated with an object (¶ [0070],[0071],[0077],[0104]).
Montero fails to clearly teach wherein the package is a single in-line package (SIP).
Liu teaches (FIG. 2) wherein a package (200) is a single in-line package (SIP) (since leads 30a-30f all face a single direction in a line, ¶ [0043]) including applied to single magnetic sensor elements (¶ [0071]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Montero by including the sensor in a single in-line package (SIP) as exemplified by Liu in order to improve the mechanical/dimensional/positional tolerances to improve accuracy (Liu ¶ [0007]) and meet creepage requirements for high voltage applications (Liu ¶ [0008]) and/or since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention,
wherein in the instant case one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of and found have found it obvious to apply (B ) simple substitution of a single in-line package of Liu for the package of Montero with the predictable and desirable result of forming a suitable packaging structure.
Claims 1-2,4-5,10-12,15,18-19,21-22,27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0187644 A1 to Tay et al., “Tay”, in view of US 2021/0223292 A1 to Liu et al., “Liu”.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Tay discloses (claim 1) a package (FIG. 4) and (claim 18) method of manufacturing comprising:
a lead frame comprising a die attach paddle (DAP) (112a and 112b) and signal leads (132a-132d), the DAP having a first portion (112a, ¶ [0019], see Examiner-annotated figure below) with a first DAP surface and a second portion (112b, ¶ [0019]) with a second DAP surface, the DAP further comprising a split (128, ¶ [0019],[0027]) defined between the first and second portions; and
a semiconductor die (die with assembly 148, from FIG. 2 die 204, ¶ [0028],[0029]) having a die surface adjacent to the first DAP surface (portion of 112a) and the second DAP surface (portion of 112b), the semiconductor die comprising at least one magnetic field sensing element (208, ¶ [0028]) supported by the semiconductor die, wherein the [[at least one]] magnetic field sensing element (208) is configured to sense a magnetic field and generate an output signal (Abstract).
PNG
media_image3.png
683
873
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tay fails to clearly teach wherein the package is a single in-line package (SIP).
Liu teaches (FIG. 2) wherein a package (200) is a single in-line package (SIP) (since leads 30a-30f all face a single direction in a line, ¶ [0043]) including applied to single magnetic sensor elements (¶ [0071]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device or performed the method of Tay by including the coupler in a single in-line package (SIP) as exemplified by Liu in order to improve the mechanical/dimensional/positional tolerances to improve accuracy (Liu ¶ [0007]) and meet creepage requirements for high voltage applications (Liu ¶ [0008]) and/or since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention,
wherein in the instant case one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of and found have found it obvious to apply (B ) simple substitution of a single in-line package of Liu for the dual in-line package of Tay with the predictable and desirable result of forming a suitable packaging structure.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and method of claim 18, and Tay further teaches wherein the split (128) entirely separates the first portion (of 112a, see Examiner-annotated figure above) and the second portion of the DAP (of 112b, see Examiner-annotated figure above).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and method of claim 18, and Tay further teaches wherein the at least one magnetic field sensing element (208) is disposed adjacent to the split (as pictured, Tay ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and method of claim 18, and Tay further teaches wherein the split (128) has a first width and a second width (see Examiner-annotated figure below), the at least one magnetic field sensing element (208) disposed adjacent to the first width of the split.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 27, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Tay further teaches wherein the split (128) has a narrowed region (e.g. second width in annotated figure above).
Regarding claims 11 and 28, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, and Tay further teaches (FIG. 4) wherein the DAP (112a or 112b) includes at least one of the signal leads (leads 116, ¶ [0019]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Tay in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1, and Tay further teaches wherein the signal leads (e.g. leads 116) are adapted to electrically couple the lead frame (112a and 112b) to a substrate (e.g. “to be inserted into a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) input or the like” ¶ [0021]) and wherein the magnetic field (caused by current path 220) is orthogonal (due to Faraday-Lenz law,
PNG
media_image5.png
24
15
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is perpendicular to current) to the substrate.
Claims 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0158765 A1 to Montero et al., “Montero”, in view of US 2021/0223292 A1 to Liu et al., “Liu”, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2018/0246147 A1 to Reymond et al., “Reymond”.
Although Montero in view of Liu yields the SIP of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, Montero fails to clearly teach wherein the split is substantially hourglass shaped.
Reymond teaches (Figure 2, ¶ [0025]) wherein a split (shape of openings in 102 around Hall effect devices 13) is substantially hourglass shaped (as pictured).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device or performed the method of Montero in view of Liu with the hourglass shape split as taught by Reymond in order to reduce parasitic effects (Reymond ¶ [0004]-[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 33 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: Prior art generally teaches die-attach paddles (DAPs) with splits or notches or the like as discussed above. Although one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modifying the shape may reduce the magnetic reluctance between the DAP and the at least one magnetic field sensing element, prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein the DAP is adapted to substantially eliminate a magnetic reluctance between the DAP and the at least one magnetic field sensing element, as claimed in claim 16 or claim 33 together with all of the limitations of claims 1 or 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0282388 A1 to Milano et al. teaches (FIG. 1A) a single in-line package (as pictured, leads 18b-32b all face a single direction) with multiple magnetic field sensing elements (54a, 54b, ¶ [0042]);
US 2013/0249544 A1 to Vig et al. teaches wherein an integrated circuit sensor 10 may be in a single in-line package (¶ [0054]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
/Eric A. Ward/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights