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 .
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2012/0068357).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A, 1B, 3A, 10B):
A clip for a semi-conductor device, the clip (40A) being provided with a plurality of holes (41), wherein the plurality of holes define a hole density (FIG. 1A).
Saito teaches holes 41 are used to suck joining material 52 into the holes for preventing the protrusion of material 52 ([0037] – [0040]) in a device with varying sizes of semiconductor components (FIG. 6A – 6C), and further discloses varying the shapes of the holes, but fails to expressly disclose a specific hole density of at least 4 holes/mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plurality of holes to whatever density was necessary or expedient in combination with varying the size and shape of the holes to optimize solder performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Regarding claim 2, Saito teaches holes through the connecting member partially filled with solder (FIG. 3A) but fails to expressly disclose the connecting member thickness:
The clip according to claim 1, wherein each hole of the plurality of holes each has a length that is at least 50μm and up to 500μm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the connecting member and thereby the hole length of whatever thickness was necessary or expedient to optimize electrical and thermal performance of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Regarding claim 3, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A):
The clip according to claim 1, wherein the holes are circular, triangular, and/or rectangular in cross-section.
Regarding claim 4, Saito teaches:
The clip according to claim 1, wherein the holes are arranged in a matrix ([0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Saito teaches varying shapes, sizes, and spacing of holes, but fails to expressly disclose:
The clip according to claim 1, wherein the region or regions of the clip to which the plurality of holes are provided has a porosity of up to 30%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the connecting member to have a whatever porosity was necessary or expedient to optimize solder performance of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 716.07: “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).”
Regarding claim 7, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A):
The clip according to claim 2, wherein the holes are circular, triangular, and/or rectangular in cross-section.
Regarding claim 8, Saito teaches:
A semi-conductor device comprising: a lead frame (30); a semi-conductor die (20) mounted on the lead frame; a clip according to claim 1, and a part of the clip is secured to the semi-conductor die (FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A):
The clip according to claim 8, wherein the clip defines a first portion that is attached to the semi-conductor die, and wherein the plurality of holes are provided to the first portion of the clip.
Regarding claim 11, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A):
The semi-conductor device according to claim 8, wherein: the lead frame comprises a die attach portion and a lead portion, the die is mounted on the die attach portion, and a second portion of the clip is secured to the lead portion of the lead frame.
Regarding claim 12, Saito teaches (FIG. 3A, 10B):
The semi-conductor device according to claim 8, further comprising a cover (60), wherein at least part of the cover extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (cover material will fill the remaining portions of holes as shown in FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 13, Saito teaches:
The semi-conductor device according to claim 8, further comprising a solder layer (52) that secures the clip to the semi-conductor die, and wherein at least part of the solder layer extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 14, Saito teaches (FIG. 3A, 10B):
The semi-conductor device according to claim 9, further comprising a cover (60), wherein at least part of the cover extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (cover material will fill the remaining portions of holes as shown in FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Saito teaches:
The semi-conductor device according to claim 9, further comprising a solder layer (52) that secures the clip to the semi-conductor die, and wherein at least part of the solder layer extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (FIG. 3A).
Claims 6, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 2012/0068357) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Munoz et al. (US 6,396,127).
Regarding claim 6, Saito teaches (FIG. 1A):
The clip according to claim 1, wherein the clip comprises a first portion for attachment to a die of the semi-conductor device, a second portion for attachment to a lead portion (30A) of a lead frame of the semi-conductor device, and a transition portion that adjoins the first portion and the second portion (FIG. 1A).
Saito fails to expressly disclose wherein the plurality of holes are provided to the first portion and the second portion.
However, Munoz teaches a device structure with a connecting clip 30 having mold lock depressions 68 and solder slots 66, along with slots on the distal end 36 which connects to a lead frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include solder relief holes anywhere solder connections are made as in the device of Munoz for the predictable advantage of improving bond performance on both the die and lead frame of Saito.
Regarding claim 10, Saito fails to expressly disclose:
The semi-conductor device according to claim 9, wherein the first portion comprises at least one dimple, and wherein at least some of the plurality of holes are provided in the region of the at least one dimple.
However, Munoz teaches a connecting member for a semiconductor device having a portion connecting to the die with raised edges (FIG. 11 – 15), meeting the limitations of a “dimple”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the raised edges of Munoz in the device of Saito for the predictable advantage of improving die surface stresses during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 16, Saito teaches (FIG. 3A, 10B):
The semi-conductor device according to claim 10, further comprising a cover (60), wherein at least part of the cover extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (cover material will fill the remaining portions of holes as shown in FIG. 3A).
Regarding claim 17, Saito teaches:
The semi-conductor device according to claim 10, further comprising a solder layer (52) that secures the clip to the semi-conductor die, and wherein at least part of the solder layer extends into at least one hole of the plurality of holes (FIG. 3A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Julio Madonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights