DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communications filed 11 July 2024 and 30 July 2026. In view of these communications, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 30 July 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of claim 4 recites “as tie bar-less package” which should instead read “as a tie bar-less package.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 of claim 14 refer to “said creepage current path length (A)” which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a vertical distance…is less than 400µm,” and the claim also recites that the vertical distance is “in particular…from 100 µm to 300 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 6, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fujieda et al. (JP 6413935 B2), hereinafter referred to as Fujieda et al., in view of Omura et al. (US 2013/0146937 A1), hereinafter referred to as Omura et al.
Regarding claim 1, Fujieda et al. teaches a package, comprising:
a carrier (10) (page 2, second paragraph: plate-like island 10);
an electronic component (20) mounted on the carrier (10) (page 2, second paragraph: semiconductor 10 mounted on the island 10);
an encapsulant (30) fully encapsulating the electronic component (20) and the carrier (10) (page 2, second paragraph: mold resin 30);
electrically conductive leads (13) electrically coupled with the carrier and/or with the electronic component (20) and extending out of the encapsulant (30) at two opposing sides of the encapsulant (30) (Fig. 7 and page 2, paragraphs 3-7: lead terminals 13 for connection to the outside); and
PNG
media_image1.png
363
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a recess (33) in at least one (31a) of two opposing main surfaces of the encapsulant (30) (Fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 4: recess 33 provided on the upper surface 31a of resin 30) and extending between two opposing further sides of the encapsulant (30) (page 5, last two paragraphs: the recess 33 penetrates between opposite ends of the upper surface 31a of the mold resin 30),
Fujieda et al. does not teach that a difference between a creepage current path length from one lead extending out of the encapsulant at one of said two opposing sides along one of said main surfaces and said recess up to another lead extending out of the encapsulant at the other one of said two opposing sides differs from a further creepage current path length from said lead along the other one of said main surfaces up to said other lead by not more than 20% of said creepage current path length.
Omura et al. does teach that a difference between a creepage current path length from one lead extending out of the encapsulant at one of said two opposing sides along one of said main surfaces and said recess up to another lead extending out of the encapsulant at the other one of said two opposing sides differs from a further creepage current path length from said lead along the other one of said main surfaces up to said other lead by not more than 20% of said creepage current path length (Omura et al. Fig. 6 and paragraphs 114 and 112: the creeping distance Lc is increased by 9 percent by the groove portion 12, which can be a single groove 12).
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 recess of Fujieda et al. such that the creepage current path length between Fujieda et al.’s leads was increased by not more than 20% as taught by Omura et al. because Omura et al. teaches that such a modification provides an effective protection from creepage discharge with minimal modification to the package (Omura et al. paragraphs 114-115 and paragraph 129).
Regarding claim 6, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein the recess (33) is formed in a main surface (31a) of the encapsulant (30) facing away from the carrier (10) and facing the electronic component (20) (Fujieda et al. Fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 4: recess 33 provided on the upper surface 31a of resin 30 and closer to the semiconductor component 20 than it is to the plate-like island carrier 10).
Regarding claim 10, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein the leads (13) are spaced from the recess (33) by ridges (33a) of the encapsulant (30) which delimit the recess (33) laterally (Fujieda et al. Fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 7: step portions 33a form the sides of the recess 33 and separate it from leads 13).
Regarding claim 12, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein the recess (33) extends along the entire distance between the two opposing further sides of the encapsulant (30) (Fujieda et al. page 5, final paragraph: recess 33 extends from one end of resin 30 to the other end of resin 30).
Regarding claim 13, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein the recess (33) is a groove, for example a straight groove (see Fujieda et al. Fig. 7 and page 5, final two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 14, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein a ratio between a width and a depth of the recess is at least 2;
wherein said difference is not more than 10% of said creepage current path length (A);
wherein said difference is zero;
a vertical distance between an exterior surface of the encapsulant delimited by the recess and a facing surface of the carrier is less than 400 µm, in particular is in a range from 100 µm to 300 µm;
the leads are gull wing-shaped; the package is configured as a power package;
the electronic component is a power chip (Fujieda et al. page 2, paragraph 8: the semiconductor element 20 may be a power element);
the carrier comprises a leadframe-type die pad.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fujieda et al., in view of Omura et al., in further view of Foster (US 6,818,973 B1), hereinafter referred to as Foster.
Regarding claim 5, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, but does not teach that the recess is formed in a main surface of the encapsulant facing the carrier and facing away from the electronic component.
Foster does teach that the recess (104) may be formed in a main surface (200) of the encapsulant (196) facing the carrier (166) and facing away from the electronic component (188) (Foster Fig. 12, column 7, lines 50-55 and column 10, lines 44-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recesses of Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. on a main surface of the encapsulant facing the carrier and awayf rom the electronic component as taught by Foster, because Foster teaches that recesses on the bottom of the package may provide additional electrical isolation between leads and contacts (Foster column 7, lines 49-51). Further, the mere relocation of the recess from the top surface of the package (as taught by Fujieda et al.) to the bottom surface of the package (as taught by Foster) would have been obvious since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, but does not teach a further recess in at least one of the two opposing main surfaces of the encapsulant and extending between the two opposing further sides of the encapsulant.
Foster does teach a further recess (104) in at least one of the two opposing main surfaces (200) of the encapsulant (196) and extending between the two opposing further sides of the encapsulant (196) (Foster Fig. 10, Fig. 12, column 7, lines 50-55 and column 10, lines 44-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form additional recesses as taught by Foster on the package of Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. because the additional recesses of Foster provide additional electrical isolation between leads and contacts (Foster column 7, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 9, Fujieda et al. in view of Omura et al. and Foster teaches the package according to claim 7, wherein the further recess and the recess are formed in two opposing main surfaces of the encapsulant and extend in parallel to each other (the recess 33 taught by Fujieda et al., see Fujieda et al. Fig. 7 and page 3, paragraph 4, is provided on the upper surface 31a of resin 30, while the recesses 104 of Foster; see Foster Fig. 10, Fig. 12, column 7, lines 50-55 and column 10, lines 44-67; are provided on the lower surface of the package and both the recesses of Foster and Fujieda et al. extend from one side surface to the opposite side surface of their respective encapsulants).
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Foster in view of Omura et al.
Regarding claim 1, Foster teaches a package, comprising:
a carrier (166) (column 10, lines 54-55);
an electronic component (188) mounted on the carrier (166) (column 11, lines 44-46);
an encapsulant (196) fully encapsulating the electronic component (188) and the carrier (166) (column 11, line 60 through column 12, line 5);
electrically conductive leads (178) electrically coupled with the carrier (166) and/or with the electronic component (166) and extending out of the encapsulant (196) at two opposing sides of the encapsulant (196) (column 12, lines 1-15); and
a recess (104) in at least one of two opposing main surfaces (200) of the encapsulant (196) (column 12, lines 1-15) and extending between two opposing further sides of the encapsulant (196) (Fig. 10 and column 7, lines 50-55),
Foster does not teach that a difference between a creepage current path length from one lead extending out of the encapsulant at one of said two opposing sides along one of said main surfaces and said recess up to another lead extending out of the encapsulant at the other one of said two opposing sides differs from a further creepage current path length from said lead along the other one of said main surfaces up to said other lead by not more than 20% of said creepage current path length.
Omura et al. does teach that a difference between a creepage current path length from one lead extending out of the encapsulant at one of said two opposing sides along one of said main surfaces and said recess up to another lead extending out of the encapsulant at the other one of said two opposing sides differs from a further creepage current path length from said lead along the other one of said main surfaces up to said other lead by not more than 20% of said creepage current path length (Omura et al. Fig. 6 and paragraphs 114 and 112: the creeping distance Lc is increased by 9 percent by the groove portion 12, which can be a single groove 12).
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 recess of Foster such that the creepage current path length between Foster’s leads was increased by not more than 20% as taught by Omura et al. because Omura et al. teaches that such a modification provides an effective protection from creepage discharge with minimal modification to the package (Omura et al. paragraphs 114-115 and paragraph 129).
Regarding claim 7, Foster in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, comprising a further recess (104) in at least one of the two opposing main surfaces (200) of the encapsulant (196) and extending between the two opposing further sides of the encapsulant (196) (Foster Fig. 10, Fig. 12, column 7, lines 50-55 and column 10, lines 44-67).
Regarding claim 8, Foster in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 7, wherein the further recess (104) is formed in the same main surface as the recess (104) and extends in parallel to the recess (104) (Foster Fig. 10, column 7, lines 50-55: the recesses 104 extend in parallel).
Regarding claim 11, Foster in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, wherein at least parts of the leads (178) extending outside of the encapsulant (196) are at least partially bent towards the main surface (200) of the encapsulant (196) in which the recess (204) is formed (Fig. 12 and column 11, lines 5-15: the leads 178 are bent towards the die pad 166, which is adjacent to the bottom surface 200 of the package 196).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Foster in view of Omura et al., in further view of St. Germain et al. (US 20190385939 A1), hereinafter referred to as St. Germain.
Regarding claim 4, Foster in view of Omura et al. teaches the package according to claim 1, but does not teach that the package is configured as tie bar-less package.
St. Germain does teach that the package is configured as a tie bar-less package (St. Germain paragraph 117: the tie-bars may be removed from the package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the package of Foster in view of Omura et al. as a tie bar-less package because St. Germain teaches that the removal of the tie bars increases distance between leads and improves electrical isolation between them (St. Germain paragraph 117).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim the package according to claim 1, wherein an exposed surface of the encapsulant at sidewalls at the two opposing sides has protrusions formed by filler particles covered with a mold skin.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in the claim the package according to claim 1, wherein an exposed surface of the encapsulant at sidewalls at the two opposing further sides has at least one of protrusions formed by exposed filler particles, indentations delimited by a curved surface, cut filler particles in flush with a mold matrix material of the encapsulant, and heat affected features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baek et al. (US 20070205503 A1)
Abe et al. (US 20170345982 A1)
Dezsi et al. (US 20230260861 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights