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 Terminal Parts Each Including a Plurality of Root Portions, Intermediate Portions, and Mount Portions”
because the claimed terminal part architecture in which a single terminal part branches into multiple fingers, each finger having the recited root/intermediate/mount configuration. That title directly reflects the likely point of novelty without importing unrelated circuitry limitations.
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 1-25 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, claim 1 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.
Further, claim 1 does not identify the reference point, boundary, or surface of the sealing resin from which the recited "opposite" relationship is measured. As a result, the scope of the claimed positional relationship between the plurality of first mount portions and the sealing resin cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 1 to positively recite the intended positional relationship. For example, claim 1 may be amended to recite:
"the first terminal part includes a plurality of first mount portions, each first mount portion being located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction than a corresponding first root portion;"
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, claim 2 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:
(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.
Further, claim 2 does not identify the reference point, boundary, or surface of the sealing resin from which the recited "opposite" relationship is determined. As a result, the scope of the claimed positional relationship between the plurality of second mount portions and the sealing resin cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 2 to recite, for example:
"the second terminal part includes a plurality of second mount portions located at an end of the second terminal part that is 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, claim 3 recites that each third terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin toward the second 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.
Further, claim 3 does not identify the reference point, boundary, or surface of the sealing resin from which the recited "opposite" relationship is determined. As a result, the scope of the claimed positional relationship between the third mount portions and the sealing resin cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 3 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 3 to recite, for example:
"each third terminal part includes a third mount portion located at an end of the third terminal part that is farther from the sealing resin in the first direction."
Regarding claim 10, "wherein the first dimension is smaller than the third dimension." The term "the first dimension" lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 3. Neither claim 9 nor claim 3 introduces or defines a "first dimension." As a result, it is unclear what structure, feature, or measurement is represented by the recited "first dimension."
Although the specification describes a first dimension associated with the first mount portions, the claim language does not establish the necessary antecedent basis within the claim dependency chain. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised with reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 10 to provide proper antecedent basis for "the first dimension," for example by:
"wherein a first dimension in the second direction of each first mount portion is smaller than the third dimension."
Further regarding claim 10, 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, claim 10 recites that the fourth terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin 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.
Further, claim 10 does not identify the reference point, boundary, or surface of the sealing resin from which the recited "opposite" relationship is determined. As a result, the scope of the claimed positional relationship between the plurality of fourth mount portions and the sealing resin cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 10 to recite, for example:
"the fourth terminal part includes a plurality of fourth mount portions each being located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction than a corresponding fourth root portion;"
Regarding claim 11, "wherein the second dimension is smaller than the third dimension." The term "the second dimension" lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and neither claim 10 nor any preceding claim in the dependency chain introduces or defines a "second dimension." Consequently, it is unclear what structure, feature, or measurement is represented by the recited "second dimension."
Although the specification describes a second dimension associated with the second mount portions, the claim language fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the recited limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 11 to provide proper antecedent basis for "the second dimension," for example by: incorporating into claim 11 language defining the second dimension, such as:
"wherein a second dimension in the second direction of each second mount portion is smaller than the third dimension."
Further regarding claim 11, 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, claim 11 recites that the fifth terminal part protrudes from the sealing resin 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.
Further, claim 11 does not identify the reference point, boundary, or surface of the sealing resin from which the recited "opposite" relationship is determined. As a result, the scope of the claimed positional relationship between the plurality of fifth mount portions and the sealing resin cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
Suggestion for overcoming the rejection:
Applicant may amend claim 11 to recite, for example:
"the fifth terminal part includes a plurality of fifth mount portions each being located farther from the sealing resin in the first direction than a corresponding fifth root portion;"
Regarding claims 2-25, 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 1-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majima (US 20200075440).
Regarding claim 1. Fig 1 (a perspective view showing a semiconductor device), Fig 16 (a detail view of mounting portions) and Fig 23 (plan view) of Majima disclose An electronic device comprising:
an electronic component 6 (Fig 1, [0044]);
a sealing resin 8 [0039] covering the electronic component;
a first terminal part (Fig 1, Fig 23: 120) protruding from the sealing resin toward a first side (Fig 1: left side; Fig 23: top side) in a first direction (Fig 1: Y) orthogonal to a thickness direction (Fig 1: Z) of the sealing resin (Fig 1: Y vs Z);
a second terminal part (Fig 1, Fig 23; the very left 220) protruding from the sealing resin toward the first side in the first direction (Fig 1, Fig 23); and
a plurality of third terminal parts 320 each protruding from the sealing resin toward a second side (Fig 1: right side; Fig 23: bottom side) in the first direction, wherein
the first terminal part and the second terminal part are located side by side with a first interval in a second direction (Fig 1: X) orthogonal to the thickness direction and the first direction (Fig 1: X vs Y, and X vs Z),
the plurality of third terminal parts are arranged in the second direction with a second interval (Fig 1),
the first interval is greater than the second interval (Fig 23; the all the third terminal located within the first interval, and the second interval further divided by the intervals. Thus, the first interval is inherently greater than the second interval), and
the first terminal part includes a plurality of first mount portions 123 each located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction (Fig 23, Fig 16, [0054]; each mounting portions separated by recess 127).
Regarding claim 2. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the second terminal part includes a plurality of second mount portions 223 each located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction (Fig 23).
Regarding claim 3. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein each of the third terminal parts includes a third mount portion 223 (in the third terminal) located at an end opposite to the sealing resin in the first direction (Fig 23).
Regarding claim 4. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of first mount portions has a first dimension along the second direction, each of the plurality of second mount portions has a second dimension along the second direction, the third mount portion of each of the plurality of third terminal parts has a third dimension along the second direction, and each of the first dimension and the second dimension is equal to or less than the third dimension (Fig 23: equal dimension).
Regarding claim 5. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein each of the first dimension and the second dimension is 1/10 to 1 times the third dimension (because they have equal dimension, it is 1 time).
Regarding claim 19. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a first pad part 310 covered with the sealing resin, wherein the electronic component is mounted on the first pad part (Fig 1).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (US 20200075440).
Regarding claim 8. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first interval is 10 to 20 times the second interval.
As shown in Fig. 23, a first interval is defined between the first terminal part 120 and an adjacent second terminal part 220, and a second interval is defined between adjacent third terminal parts 320. Majima further teaches a terminal arrangement in which the first interval is substantially greater than the second interval. See Fig. 23.
But Majima 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 Majima such that the first interval is 10 to 20 times the second interval.
Claims 18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (US 20200075440) in view of Matsubara (US 20160307854).
Regarding claim 18. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 3. But Majima does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of third terminal parts includes a third root portion located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and a third intermediate portion connecting the third root portion and the third mount portion.
However, Fig 2 of Matsubara discloses each of the plurality of third terminal parts (the terminals exposed from the right side surface 63 of the sealing resin 6) includes a third root portion (immediately adjacent the sealing resin 6 corresponding to the claimed third root portion) located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and a third intermediate portion (the portion between root and mount portion) connecting the third root portion and the third mount portion (the outer portion).
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 terminal structure of Majima to include the root-intermediate-mount configuration taught by Matsubara because such a terminal configuration provides a robust mechanical and electrical connection between the encapsulated portion of the terminal and the externally exposed mounting portion while maintaining reliable package assembly and surface mounting characteristics.
Regarding claim 20. Majima discloses The electronic device according to claim 19. But Majima does not expressly disclose further comprising a second pad part spaced apart from the first pad part and covered with the sealing resin, wherein the electronic component includes a first chip mounted on the first pad part and a second chip mounted on the second pad part.
However, Fig 2 of Matsubara discloses a second pad part 22 spaced apart from the first pad part 21 and covered with the sealing resin 6, wherein the electronic component includes a first chip 111 mounted on the first pad part and a second chip 112 mounted on the second pad part.
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 Majima to include the separated pad arrangement taught by Matsubara because mounting different semiconductor chips on separate die pads provides electrical isolation, facilitates circuit layout, improves heat dissipation characteristics, and was a known packaging technique in semiconductor device packages.
Regarding claim 21. Majima in view of Matsubara discloses The electronic device according to claim 20, Matsubara discloses wherein the first chip electrically conducts to each of the first terminal part and the second terminal part, and the second chip electrically conducts to at least one of the plurality of third terminal parts (Fig 2: via bonding wires).
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 Majima to incorporate the electrical connection arrangement taught by Matsubara because connecting different semiconductor chips to different package terminals enables signal transmission and power distribution while providing a predictable and well-known semiconductor package configuration.
Regarding claim 22. Majima in view of Matsubara discloses The electronic device according to claim 21, Matsubara discloses further comprising:
a first extension part 511 (connected the first terminal) extending from the first terminal part and connected to the first pad part; and
a second extension part 511 (connected the first terminal) extending from the second terminal part and spaced apart from the first pad part,
wherein the first extension part and the second extension part are covered with the sealing resin (Fig 2).
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 Majima to include the extension-part configuration taught by Matsubara because embedding portions of terminals within the sealing resin while providing connections to die pads is a known semiconductor packaging technique that provides structural support, electrical connection, and package reliability.
Regarding claim 23. Majima in view of Matsubara discloses The electronic device according to claim 22, Matsubara discloses further comprising a first connecting member 512 (connected the first extension part) bonded to the first chip and the second extension part 512 (connected the second extension part) and electrically connecting the first chip and the second extension part (Fig 2).
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 Majima to include the bonding-wire connection arrangement taught by Matsubara because bonding wires are a well-known and predictable technique for electrically connecting semiconductor chips to package terminals and conductive members within semiconductor packages.
Regarding claim 24. Majima in view of Matsubara discloses The electronic device according to claim 22, Matsubara discloses further comprising a plurality of third extension parts 522 extending from the plurality of third terminal parts, respectively, wherein the plurality of third extension parts are covered with the sealing resin, and the second pad part is connected to one of the plurality of third extension parts (Fig 2).
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 Majima to include the extension-part arrangement taught by Matsubara because connecting a die pad to an embedded terminal-support structure provides mechanical support, electrical connectivity, and package integrity while employing known semiconductor packaging techniques for their intended purpose.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (US 20200075440) in view of Matsubara (US 20160307854), further in view of Shirai (US 20200312750).
Regarding claim 25. Majima in view of Matsubara discloses The electronic device according to claim 20. But Majima in view of Matsubara 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 Majima, as modified by Matsubara, 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 Majima, Matsubara, 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 6-7 and 9-17 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, “the first terminal part includes a plurality of first root portions located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and a plurality of first intermediate portions individually connecting the plurality of first root portions and the plurality of first mount portions, and a dimension along the second direction of each of the plurality of first root portions is equal to the first dimension”.
Regarding claim 9. 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”.
Regarding claim 12. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the first terminal part includes a first root portion located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and a first intermediate portion connecting the first root portion and the plurality of first mount portions”.
Regarding claim 15. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “the second terminal part includes a second root portion located at an end closer to the sealing resin in the first direction and a second intermediate portion connecting the second root portion and the plurality of second mount portions”.
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