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
Title
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. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Packaged Electronic device Having Differently Sized and Spaced Terminal Portions”
because Claim 1 is directed to a package structure in which (i) a first interval between the first and second terminal portions is greater than a second interval between adjacent third terminal portions, and (ii) the first and second terminal portions have greater widths than the third terminal portions. The proposed title reflects these defining structural features of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction" is unclear because the positional relationship established by the term "opposite" is ambiguous. Specifically, the claim previously recites that the first terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin toward a first side in the first direction. In view of this recitation, it is unclear whether "opposite to the sealing resin" means:
(1) located on an opposite side relative to the sealing resin,
(2) located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction, or
(3) some other positional relationship.
Accordingly, the scope of the claimed relationship between the first mount portion and the sealing resin is unclear.
The specification and drawings appear to indicate that the first mount portion is located at the distal end of the first terminal part, i.e., at the end of the first terminal part that is farther from the sealing resin in the first direction. For example, the drawings depict the first mount portion at the extremity of the first terminal part remote from the sealing resin, and paragraph [0028] describes the first mount portion as the extremity of the first terminal part.
Applicant may wish to amend the claim to more clearly recite the intended relationship. For example, the limitation may be amended to recite:
"the first terminal part includes a first mount portion located at an end of the first terminal part farther from the sealing resin in the first direction"
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction" is unclear because the positional relationship established by the term "opposite" is ambiguous. Specifically, the claim recites that the second terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin toward the first side in the first direction. In view of this recitation, it is unclear whether "opposite to the sealing resin" means located on an opposite side relative to the sealing resin, located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction, or some other positional relationship. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed relationship between the second mount portion and the sealing resin is unclear.
The specification and drawings appear to indicate that the second mount portion is located at the extremity of the second terminal part that is farther from the sealing resin in the first direction.
Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite:
"the second terminal part includes a second mount portion located at an end of the second terminal part farther from the sealing resin in the first direction"
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction" is unclear because the positional relationship established by the term "opposite" is ambiguous. Specifically, the claim recites that each third terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin toward a second side in the first direction. In view of this recitation, it is unclear whether "opposite to the sealing resin" means located on an opposite side relative to the sealing resin, located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction, or some other positional relationship. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed relationship between each third mount portion and the sealing resin is unclear.
The specification and drawings appear to indicate that each third mount portion is located at the extremity of the corresponding third terminal part that is farther from the sealing resin in the first direction.
Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite:
"each of the plurality of third terminal parts includes a third mount portion located at an end of the corresponding third terminal part farther from the sealing resin in the first direction"
Regarding claims 2-14, because of their dependency on claim 1, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shibata (US 20230163052).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 2 of Shibata discloses An electronic device comprising:
an electronic component ([0018]: semiconductor chips);
a sealing resin 1 [0015] covering the electronic component;
a first terminal part (3LW) protruding from the sealing resin toward a first side (bottom side) in a first direction (Y) orthogonal to a thickness direction (Z) of the sealing resin;
a second terminal part (3HU) protruding from the sealing resin toward the first side in the first direction; and
a plurality of third terminal parts (2L) each protruding from the sealing resin toward a second side (upper side) in the first direction, wherein
the first terminal part and the second terminal part are located side by side with a first interval (the interval between 3LW and 3HU) in a second direction (X) orthogonal to the thickness direction and the first direction (X vs Y vs Z),
the plurality of third terminal parts are arranged in the second direction with a second interval (the interval between each 2L),
the first interval is greater than the second interval (all the 2L completely within the first interval),
the first terminal part includes a first mount portion (the outermost portion of 3LW) located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction,
the second terminal part includes a second mount portion (the outermost portion of 3HU) located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction,
each of the plurality of third terminal parts includes a third mount portion (the outermost portions of each 2L) located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction, and
a first dimension along the second direction of the first mount portion and a second dimension along the second direction of the second mount portion are each greater than a third dimension along the second direction of respective third mount portions of the plurality of third terminal parts (Fig 2, [0015]).
Regarding claim 2. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first dimension and the second dimension are 1 to 10 times the third dimension [0015].
Regarding claim 3. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal part includes a first root portion [0015] located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and connected to the first mount portion, and
a dimension along the second direction of the first root portion is equal to the first dimension (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the second terminal part includes a second root portion [0015] located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and connected to the second mount portion, and a dimension along the second direction of the second root portion is equal to the second dimension (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a first pad part (8HW) [0022] and a second pad part (8HU) [0019] spaced apart from each other and covered with the sealing resin (Fig 2),
wherein the electronic component includes a first chip (5LW) mounted on the first pad part and a second chip (5LU) mounted on the second pad part (Fig 2, [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 10. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 9, wherein the first chip electrically conducts to each of the first terminal part and the second terminal part (Fig 2: via 4L), and the second chip electrically conducts to at least one of the plurality of third terminal parts (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 11. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 10, further comprising:
a first extension part (Fig 2: the inner part of 3LW, which is covered by 1) extending from the first terminal part; and
a second extension part (6HU) extending from the second terminal part (Fig 2),
wherein the first extension part and the second extension part are covered with the sealing resin (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the first extension part is connected to the first pad part (Fig 2: electrically connected via wire), and the second extension part is spaced apart from the first pad part (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, further comprising a plurality of third extension parts extending from the plurality of third terminal parts (Fig 2: the inner part of each third terminals, which are covered by 1), respectively, wherein the plurality of third extension parts are covered with the sealing resin (Fig 2).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 20230163052).
Regarding claim 5. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first interval is 10 to 20 times the second interval.
As shown in Fig. 2, Shibata further teaches a terminal arrangement in which the first interval is substantially greater than the second interval [0031]. But Shibata does not expressly disclose that the first interval is 10 to 20 times the second interval.
However, the ratio between the first interval and the second interval constitutes a result-effective variable because the spacing between terminals directly affects terminal density, package size, electrical isolation, creepage distance, solder joint reliability, and mounting characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the relative spacing between terminals could be varied to achieve desired package design objectives while maintaining the disclosed terminal arrangement.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio between the first interval and the second interval, including selecting a value within the claimed range of 10 to 20, through routine engineering design and experimentation. The claimed range merely represents one of a finite number of predictable solutions available to a skilled artisan when balancing terminal density and package dimensions.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable ordinarily falls within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP §2144.05(II).
Additionally, the instant specification does not identify any criticality associated with the claimed range of 10 to 20, nor does it disclose any unexpected results achieved when the ratio falls within the claimed range as compared with values outside the claimed range. In the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results, the selection of a particular numerical range obtainable through routine optimization would have been obvious. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ... ranges is the optimum combination").
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the spacing arrangement taught by Shibata such that the first interval is 10 to 20 times the second interval.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US 20230163052) in view of Shirai (US 20200312750).
Regarding claim 14. Shibata discloses The electronic device according to claim 9. But Shibata does not expressly disclose wherein the first chip includes a resistor element and outputs a first signal corresponding to a potential at the first terminal part and a second signal corresponding to a potential at the second terminal part, and the second chip includes an operational amplifier, receives the first signal and the second signal, and outputs a third signal corresponding to a potential difference between the first terminal part and the second terminal part.
However, Shirai teaches a voltage detection and control circuit including resistors R1 and R2 and an amplifier amp. As shown in Fig. 8, resistors R1 and R2 form a resistor network that generates a feedback signal FB corresponding to a voltage present between terminals of the resistor network. Shirai further teaches an amplifier amp that receives the feedback signal FB and a reference signal Vref and outputs a signal based on the comparison of the received signals. Paragraph [0102] explains that the amplifier amp is included in the second semiconductor element 3 together with the control circuitry. Thus, Shirai teaches generating signals corresponding to terminal potentials using resistor elements and processing such signals with an amplifier to generate an output corresponding to a voltage difference. See Fig. 8 and ¶[0102].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata to employ the voltage sensing and amplifier arrangement taught by Shirai because amplifier-based processing of voltage-representative signals generated by resistor networks was a well-known technique for accurately detecting voltage differences and generating corresponding control signals. Such modification would have predictably improved voltage detection accuracy and signal processing capability while utilizing known circuit elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, the combination of Shibata and Shirai teaches or at least suggests a first chip including a resistor element that generates signals corresponding to terminal potentials and a second chip including an amplifier that receives such signals and outputs a signal corresponding to a voltage difference therebetween.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 6. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “a fourth terminal part and a fifth terminal part that protrude from the sealing resin toward the second side in the first direction and that are disposed on respective sides in the second direction of the plurality of third terminal parts, wherein the fourth terminal part overlaps with the first terminal part as viewed in the first direction, and the fifth terminal part overlaps with the second terminal part as viewed in the first direction”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights