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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, 12-15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re Claim 8, line 1 defines “an aperture”, where it is unclear if “an aperture” is included within “at least one aperture” defined in line 7 of Claim 1, or if it is a newly defined aperture outside the set of “at least one aperture”. For the purposes of examination, the former will be assumed.
Re Claim 10, line 1 defines “the third portion of the coined region”, wherein “a third portion of the coined region” was not previously defined in the dependent chain (improper antecedent basis). For the purposes of examination, “the third portion of the coined region” will be interpreted as “a third portion of the coined region”.
Re Claim 12, line 1 defines “at least one aperture”, which has already been defined in line 7 of Claim 1. For the purposes of examination and to avoid confusion, “at least one aperture” in line 1 of Claim 12 will be interpreted as “at least one other aperture “.
Re Claim 13, line 1 defines “an aperture”, where it is unclear if “an aperture” is referring to a completely new set of apertures, or a shared set with “at least one aperture” claimed in line 1 of Claim 12. Similarly, in line 2 of Claim 13 it is unclear whether the “respective two external corners” include “an external corner” defined in line 2 of Claim 12. For the purposes of examination and clarity, Claims 12 and 13 will be interpreted as the following:
Claim 12 – The die paddle according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one other aperture, which extends through the coined region, the at least one other aperture comprises a first aperture disposed proximate a first external corner of the die paddle in the coined region.
Claim 13 – The die paddle according to claim 12, wherein the at least one other aperture further comprises a second aperture disposed proximate a second external corner of the die paddle in the coined region.
Re Claim 14, line 2 recites “each of the respective two external corners”, wherein two external corners were not previously established in the dependent chain (improper antecedent basis). For the purposes of examination, “each of the respective two external corners” will be interpreted as “each of a respective two external corners of the die paddle”.
Re Claim 14, lines 1-2 recites “wherein the at least one aperture is at least two apertures disposed proximate each of the respective two external corners”, which seems to conflict with the property denoted in Claim 1 lines 9-10 that the at least one aperture is “at least partially surrounded by an internal corner of the die paddle”, in relation to the embodiments described in the Specification and the Drawings (such as FIG. 1). For the purposes of examination, “wherein the at least one aperture is at least two apertures disposed proximate each of the respective two external corners” will be interpreted as “further comprising at least one other aperture, which extends through the coined region, wherein the at least one other aperture comprises at least two apertures disposed proximate each of a respective two external corners of the die paddle”.
Re Claim 15, lines 1-3 recite “the […] external corner”, where it is not clear which of the established external corners in Claims 12-13 “the […] external corner” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, “the […] external corner” will be considered to be one of the two external corners established in Claim 13. Additionally, line 2 refers to “the adjacent aperture”, wherein no “an adjacent aperture” was previously established (improper antecedent basis). For the purposes of examination, “the adjacent aperture” will be assumed to be referring to “at least one aperture” in either line 7 of Claim 1 or line 1 of Claim 12.
Re Claim 20, lines 1-2 recite “the casing obscures all apertures defined in the coined region of the die paddle”, wherein the only apertures to be defined previously are the “at least one aperture” in line 7 of Claim 1, so it is unclear whether “all apertures” is attempting to introduce new apertures. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, “the casing obscures all apertures defined in the coined region of the die paddle” will be interpreted as “the casing obscures the at least one aperture”.
Claims 13 and 15 inherit the objection to Claim 12, while Claim 15 also inherits the objection to Claim 13. Claim 14 inherits the objection to Claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashi (JP H043450 A).
Re Claim 1, Takashi discloses a die paddle (1, FIG. 1, with reference to FIG. 2; [0001]) for a semiconductor assembly, comprising:
first and second major faces (1, top and bottom faces, respectively, in FIG. 2; [0001]) offset from another by a thickness of the die paddle (1; [0001]), and being at least partly defined by an outer perimeter of the die paddle (1; [0001]);
a coined region (5; [0001]) recessed into at least one of the first and second major faces (1, top and bottom faces, respectively, in FIG. 2; [0001]), the coined region (5) extending from, and at least partway around, the outer perimeter of the die paddle (1; [0001]); and
at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B, see FIG. Z1 below; [0001]), which extends through the coined region (5; [0001]), for receipt of material therein ([0001], receipt of resin 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
424
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) is disposed adjacent, and at least partially surrounded by an internal corner (1A, 1B; [0001]) of the die paddle (1; [0001]), the internal corner (1A, 1B) being at least partly defined by the coined region (5; [0001], the corner’s bottom is defined by the coined region).
FIG. Z1: Annotated version of FIG. 1 of Takashi
Re Claim 2, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) is a circular bore ([0001]).
Re Claim 3, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) comprises a plurality of apertures (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B; [0001]).
Re Claim 4, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) is disposed proximate the outer perimeter of the die paddle (1; [0001]).
PNG
media_image2.png
523
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 5, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein the outer perimeter of the die paddle (1) is defined by a plurality of sides ([0001], see FIG. Z2 below).
FIG. Z2: Annotated version of FIG. 1 of Takashi
Re Claim 6, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 5, while further disclosing wherein the coined region (5) extends only partway along two of the plurality of sides (“left side” and “right side”, see FIG. Z2; [0001]).
Re Claim 7, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 6, while further disclosing wherein first and second portions of the coined region (5, “first portion” and “second portion”, see FIG. Z2; [0001]), disposed along each of the two of the plurality of sides (“left side” and “right side”; [0001]), at least partly define a respective internal corner (1A, 1B; [0001]).
Re Claim 8, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 7, while further disclosing the die paddle comprises an aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) that is disposed adjacent each of the two internal corners (1A, 1B) defined by the first and second portions of the coined region (5, “first portion” and “second portion”; [0001]).
Re Claim 9, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 5, while further disclosing wherein the coined region (5) has a third portion (“third portion”, see FIG. Z2; [0001]) that extends along an entirety of at least one of the plurality of sides (“bottom side”, FIG. Z2; [0001]).
Re Claim 10, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 7, while further disclosing wherein the third portion of the coined region (5, “third portion”, see FIG. Z2; [0001]) interposes the first and second portions of the coined region (5, “first portion” and “second portion”; [0001]).
Re Claim 11, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) has a substantially uniform cross-section ([0003], circular; FIG. 2).
Re Claim 12, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 1, while further disclosing the die paddle (1) comprises at least one aperture (7, closest to external corners 1C, 1D, see FIG. Z1; [0001]) disposed proximate an external corner (1C, 1D) of the die paddle (1; [0001]) in the coined region (5; [0001]).
Re Claim 13, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 12, while further disclosing the die paddle (1) comprises an aperture (7, closest to external corners 1C, 1D, see FIG. Z1; [0001]) that is disposed proximate each of a respective two external corners (1C, 1D; [0001]).
Re Claim 14, Takashi discloses the die paddle according to Claim 10, while further disclosing wherein the at least one aperture (7) is at least two apertures (7, closest to external corners 1C, 1D) disposed proximate each of the respective two external corners (1C, 1D, see FIG. Z1; [0001]) and are disposed proximate ends of the third portion of the coined region (5, “third portion”; [0001]).
Re Claim 16, Takashi discloses a die paddle (1, FIG. 1, with reference to FIG. 2; [0001]) for a semiconductor assembly, comprising:
first and second major faces (1, top and bottom faces, respectively, in FIG. 2; [0001]) offset from another by a thickness of the die paddle (1; [0001]), and being at least partly defined by an outer perimeter of the die paddle (1; [0001]);
a coined region (5; [0001]) recessed into at least one of the first and second major faces (1, top and bottom faces, respectively, in FIG. 2; [0001]), the coined region (5) extending from, and at least partway around, the outer perimeter of the die paddle (1; [0001]); and
at least one aperture (7, closest to external corners 1C, 1D, see FIG. Z1; [0001]), which extends through the coined region (5; [0001]), for receipt of material therein ([0001], receipt of resin 3),
wherein the at least one aperture (7, closest to external corners 1C, 1D) is disposed adjacent an external corner (1C, 1D) of the die paddle (1; [0001]).
Re Claim 17, Takashi discloses a semiconductor assembly (FIG. 6; [0003]) comprising:
the die paddle (1) according to claim 1 ([0001]);
a die (2; [0001]) coupled to the die paddle (1; [0001]);
a connector (4; [0001]) coupled to the die (1; [0001]); and
a casing (3; [0001]), which surrounds the die (2; [0001]) and at least part of the die paddle (1; [0001]) and the connector (4; [0001]), wherein the casing (3) is coupled to the die paddle (1) by a portion of the casing (3) which extends through the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) of the die paddle (1; [0001]) between the first and second major faces (1, top and bottom faces, respectively, in FIG. 2) of the die paddle (1; [0001]).
Re Claim 19, Takashi discloses the semiconductor assembly according to Claim 17, while further disclosing wherein the casing (3) is plastic ([0001]).
Re Claim 20, Takashi discloses the semiconductor assembly according to Claim 17, while further disclosing wherein the casing (3) obscures all apertures (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) defined in the coined region (5) of the die paddle (1; [0001]).
Re Claim 21, Takashi discloses a method of manufacturing the semiconductor assembly of Claim 17 (FIG. 6; [0003]), comprising the steps of:
coupling the die (2; [0001]) to the die paddle (1; [0001]);
coupling the connector (4; [0001]) to the die (1; [0001]); and
moulding the casing (3; [0001]) at least partly over the die paddle (1; [0001]), wherein moulding the casing (3) comprises flowing a material of the casing (3) through the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) of the die paddle (1; [0001]) such that the casing (3) is coupled to the die paddle (1; [0001]).
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi, as applied to Claim 17, in view of Goh (US 2015/0061096 A1).
Re Claim 18, Takashi teaches the semiconductor assembly according to Claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the connector (4) comprises a clip, and wherein the clip is coupled to the die (2).
However, Goh teaches a semiconductor assembly (FIG. 4M; [0031]) comprising wherein the connector (424; [0031]) comprises a clip ([0031]), and wherein the clip (424) is coupled to the die (402; [0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor assembly as discussed with regard to Claim 17 with the limitations taught by Goh to use a clip as part of the connector as a functionally equivalent means of predictably establishing electrical connection to the die and an outside terminal as taught by Goh ([0031]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi, as applied to Claim 21, in view of Goh.
Re Claim 22, Takashi teaches the method of manufacturing a semiconductor assembly according to Claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein coupling the connector (4) to the die (2) comprises coupling a clip to the die (2).
However, Goh teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor assembly (FIG. 4M; [0031]) comprising wherein coupling the connector (424; [0031]) to the die (402; [0031]) comprises coupling a clip (424; [0031]) to the die (402; [0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a semiconductor assembly as discussed with regard to Claim 21 with the limitations taught by Goh to use a clip as part of the connector as a functionally equivalent means of predictably establishing electrical connection to the die and an outside terminal as taught by Goh ([0031]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi, as applied to Claim 21, in view of Lin et al (US 2011/0163348 A1, hereafter Lin).
Re Claim 23, Takashi teaches the method of manufacturing a semiconductor assembly according to Claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein manufacturing the die paddle comprises defining the at least one aperture (7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) by one or more of a laser cutting, etching or stamping process.
However, Lin teaches a method of manufacturing an assembly (FIGS. 3A-3B; [0127]-[0128]) wherein defining the at least one aperture (40; [0128]) by one or more of a laser cutting, etching or stamping process ([0128]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a semiconductor assembly as discussed with regard to Claim 21 with the limitations taught by Lin to use stamping to create the at least one aperture (Takashi: 7, closest to internal corners 1A, 1B) as a functionally equivalent means to predictably create a through-hole through a metal layer as taught by Lin ([0128]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (assuming outstanding objections were addressed) 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:
Re Claim 15, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the internal/external corner is filleted, and wherein the adjacent aperture is concentric with the internal and/or external corner, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights