DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
(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, 3-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogren (U.S. PGPub 2013/0037927).
Regarding claim 1, Rogren teaches a lead frame (Figs. 11-23) comprising:
a lead that includes an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface having a larger width than a width of the lower surface (145, Fig. 13, Fig. 22, [0094]),
a connection portion that is arranged on the upper surface and serves as a connection portion for a semiconductor element (147, [0081], [0086]),
a plating film that covers a surface of the lead (143, [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Rogren teaches wherein, in the plating film, a film thickness of a portion that covers the upper surface is smaller than a film thickness of a portion that covers the lower surface (Fig. 22, plating film 143 is not present on upper surface).
Regarding claim 4, Rogren teaches wherein the lead includes a side surface between the upper surface and the lower surface, and
in the plating film, a film thickness of a portion that covers the side surface is smaller than a film thickness of a portion that covers one of the upper surface and the lower surface (Fig. 22, plating film 143 is not present on upper surface).
Regarding claim 8, Rogren teaches wherein the lead has a tapered shape in which a width of the upper surface is larger than a width of the lower surface in a cross section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the lead (Figs. 20-25).
Regarding claim 10, Rogren teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 11-23), comprising:
a semiconductor element that is mounted on the lead frame (Fig. 25, 160, [0095]) and
sealing resin that seals the semiconductor element (170, [0095]), wherein
the lead frame includes a lead that includes an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface having a larger width than a width of the lower surface (145, Fig. 13, Fig. 22, [0094]),
a connection portion that is arranged on the upper surface and serves as a connection portion for the semiconductor element (147, [0081], [0086]),
a plating film that covers a surface of the lead (143, [0081]-[0082]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (U.S. PGPub 2004/0232534) in view of Rogren (U.S. PGPub 2013/0037927).
Regarding claim 1, Seki teaches a lead frame (Fig. 9, 1, [0101]), comprising:
a lead that includes an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig. 11, [0102]),
a connection portion that is arranged on the upper surface and serves as a connection portion for a semiconductor element ([0101], silver-plated layer, see Fig. 5, 3, [0091]), and
a plating film that covers a surface of the lead (one or more of 7a/7b/2a, [0103]).
Seki does not explicitly teach the upper surface of the lead having a larger width than a width of the lower surface.
Rogren teaches a lead frame comprising a lead includes an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface having a larger width than a width of the lower surface (145, Fig. 13, Fig. 22, [0094]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Rogren with Seki such that the upper surface of the lead has a larger width than a width of the lower surface for the purpose of providing secure attachment to the encapsulant (Rogren, [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein, in the plating film, a film thickness of a portion that covers the lower surface is smaller than a film thickness of a portion that covers the upper surface (Seki, Fig. 11, [0103]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein, in the plating film, a film thickness of a portion that covers the upper surface is smaller than a film thickness of a portion that covers the lower surface (Seki, [0103], layer 2b selectively formed on only one surface, which may be the lower surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein the lead includes a side surface between the upper surface and the lower surface (Seki, Fig. 9; Rogren, Fig. 22), and in the plating film, a film thickness of a portion that covers the side surface is smaller than a film thickness of a portion that covers one of the upper surface and the lower surface (Seki, [0096], plating layer may be formed on the side surfaces; [0095], layer 2b selectively formed on upper and/or lower surfaces; Rogren, [0085]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein a surface of the plating film is a roughened surface, and surface roughness of the surface of the plating film is larger than surface roughness of the surface of the lead (Seki, 2b, [0095], [0102]-[0103], Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein in the plating film, surface roughness of a portion that covers the upper surface is larger than surface roughness of a portion that covers the lower surface (Seki, 2b, [0095], [0102]-[0103], Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein the lead has a tapered shape in which a width of the upper surface is larger than a width of the lower surface in a cross section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the lead (Rogren, Figs. 20-25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches a die pad that includes a mounting surface for the semiconductor element, wherein the plating film covers a surface of the die pad (Seki, Fig. 5, [0091]; [0101]-[0103]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Seki with Rogren for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Seki teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a lead frame (Fig. 9, 1, [0101]),
a semiconductor element that is mounted on the lead frame (Fig. 9, [0101]), and
sealing resin that seals the semiconductor element (9, [0101]), wherein
the lead frame includes
a lead that includes an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig. 11, [0102]),
a connection portion that is arranged on the upper surface and serves as a connection portion for a semiconductor element ([0101], silver-plated layer, see Fig. 5, 3, [0091]), and
a plating film that covers a surface of the lead (one or more of 7a/7b/2a, [0103]).
Seki does not explicitly teach the upper surface of the lead having a larger width than a width of the lower surface.
Rogren teaches a lead frame comprising a lead includes an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface having a larger width than a width of the lower surface (145, Fig. 13, Fig. 22, [0094]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Rogren with Seki such that the upper surface of the lead has a larger width than a width of the lower surface for the purpose of providing secure attachment to the encapsulant (Rogren, [0019]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (U.S. PGPub 2004/0232534) in view of Rogren (U.S. PGPub 2013/0037927) and Sonehara (U.S. PGPub 2019/0157196).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seki and Rogren teaches wherein the connection portion is formed of a plating layer of a different material from the plating film (Seki, [0091]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the connection portion is arranged on the plating film that covers the upper surface.
Sonehara teaches a lead frame comprising a lead and a plating film that covers a surface of the lead (Figs. 1A-1B, [0047]-[0049], 21, 22) a connection portion arranged on the upper surface of the lead and serves as a connection portion for a semiconductor element, wherein the connection portion is arranged on the plating film ([0050], 23, [0125], 213).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sonehara with Seki and Rogren such that the connection portion is arranged on the plating film that covers the upper surface because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights