DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janting Jacob et al. (WO 0126136 A2, hereinafter Janting’136) in view of Koshikawa et al. (US 20130082300 A1, hereinafter Koshikawa’300).
Regarding independent claim 1, Janting’136 teaches, “An electronic circuit package (fig. 1-10, related description) comprising:
(a) at least one metal leadframe having a surface (fig. 1, page 21, lines 21-27, ‘7 is a supporting substrate, leadframe etc.’);
(b) a surface treatment coating applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe to form at least one coated leadframe (fig. 1, fig. 3, Pg. 22, Iines 17-19, ‘Figure 3 shows two embodiments (L and M) of an encapsulated multichip microsystem. In a first embodiment, L, an encapsulated device like E in Figure 1 has been coated with a first conducting layer 14’); and
(c) an encapsulating polymeric layer that is molded over portions of the at least one coated leadframe (page 6, Iines 4-10, ‘one layer of material may be adapted to shield the microsystem effectively against different environmental effects so that different parts of the one layer of material shield against different environmental effects according to the composition of the layer. The plurality of materials may for example comprise a polymer, and the polymer may comprise a filler’; page 11, Iines 28-29; page 12, Iines 23-29, ‘injection/transfer moulding’);
wherein the surface treatment coating comprises:
(1) a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfluoropolyether compound applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe (page 10, line 31 - page 11, Iine 4, ‘hydrocarbons like the GURONICO, a group of materials from Paul Jordan, Electrotechnische Fabrik GmbH & Co., may be applied by e. g. a dipping technique. The GURONICO materials are soft and water-repellent and therefore suitable for the first layer of material to absorb shock and vibrations, and furthermore the materials are suitable for the outer protective layer because of their water-repellent characteristics); or
(2) a two-layer repellency coating comprising:
(i) a first layer deposited from an aqueous solution of a metal salt, applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe; and
(ii) a repellency layer applied to the first layer, wherein the repellency layer (ii) comprises a zwitterionic-functional compound.
Janting’136 fails to disclose (1) a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfluoropolyether compound or (2) a two-layer repellency coating comprising: (i) a first layer deposited from an aqueous solution of a metal salt, applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe; and (ii) a repellency layer applied to the first layer.
However, Koshikawa’300, drawn to molded article components, discloses a surface treatment coating applied to the surface of at least one leadframe to form at least one coated leadframe (¶ [0091]); and wherein the surface treatment coating comprises: (1) a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfluoropolyether compound applied to the surface of the at least one leadframe (¶ [0004], ¶ [0009] - ¶ [0011], ¶ [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the package, as disclosed by Janting’136, as to include a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfluoropolyether compound, as disclosed by Koshikawa’300, to provide resistance, mold releasability, and repelling properties, as disclosed by Koshikawa’300 (see Koshikawa’300, ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The electronic circuit package of claim 1 wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the single-layer repellency coating (1)” (Janting’136, page 10, lines 31 - page 11, line 4, ‘hydrocarbons like the GURONICO, a group of materials from Paul Jordan, Electrotechnische Fabrik GmbH & Co., may be applied bye. g. a dipping technique. The GURONICO materials are soft and water-repellent and therefore suitable for the first layer of material to absorb shock and vibrations, and furthermore the materials are suitable for the outer protective layer because of their water-repellent characteristics.).
Regarding claim 3, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The electronic circuit package of claim 2 wherein the perfluoropolyether compound comprises one or more of a perfluoropolyether siloxane and perfluoropolyether phosphonic acid” (Koshikawa’300, ¶ [0004], ¶¶ [0011] - [0014], Rf1 represents a divalent perfluoropolyether group represented by the following general formula (4) or (5); ¶ [0012]- cyclic organopolysiloxane which is represented by the following general formula).
Regarding claim 9, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The electronic circuit package of claim 1, wherein the encapsulating polymeric layer (c) comprises an epoxy or a polysiloxane” (Janting’136, page 19, lines 31-32, ‘sealing of the surface by for example applying an epoxy material at the critical areas may be used’).
Regarding independent claim 10, Janting’136 discloses, “A method of reducing adhesion of mold flash from epoxy mold compound to a metal leadframe surface during manufacture of an electronic circuit package (fig. 3, page 20, lines 14-15, ‘In Figure 3 two embodiments, L, M, wherein an microsystem as well as an integrated circuit (IC) are encapsulated according to the present invention; fig.. 1, Pg. 21, In 21-27, ‘a supporting substrate, leadframe etc.’), comprising:
(a) applying a surface treatment coating to the surface of the metal leadframe (fig. 1, fig. 3, page 22, lines 17-19, ‘Figure 3 shows two embodiments (Land M) of an encapsulated multichip microsystem. In a first embodiment, L, an encapsulated device like E in Figure 1 has been coated with a first conducting layer 14’); and subsequently
(b) molding the epoxy mold compound as an encapsulating polymeric layer over portions of the metal leadframe (page 6, lines 4-10, ‘one layer of material may be adapted to shield the microsystem effectively against different environmental effects so that different parts of the one layer of material shield against different environmental effects according to the composition of the layer. The plurality of materials may for example comprise a polymer, and the polymer may comprise a filler’);
wherein the surface treatment coating comprises:
(1) a single-layer repellency coating comprising a compound applied to the surface of the metal leadframe (Pg. 10, In 31-Pg. 11, In 4-hydrocarbons like the GURONICO, a group of materials from Paul Jordan, Electrotechnische Fabrik GmbH & Co., may be applied by e. g. a dipping technique. The GURONICO materials are soft and water-repellent and therefore suitable for the first layer of material to absorb shock and vibrations, and furthermore the materials are suitable for the outer protective layer because of their water-repellent characteristics).
Janting’136 fails to disclose a method of reducing adhesion of mold flash from epoxy mold compound to a metal leadframe and (1) a single layer repellency coating comprising a perfiuoropolyether compound or (2) a two-layer repellency coating comprising: (i) a first layer deposited from an aqueous solution of a metal salt, applied to the surface of the metal leadframe; and (ii) a repellency layer applied to the first layer.
However, Koshikawa’300, drawn to molded article components, discloses a surface treatment coating applied to the surface of at least one leadframe to form at least one coated leadframe (para [0091 ]); and wherein the surface treatment coating comprises: (1) a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfiuoropolyether compound applied to the surface of the at least one leadframe (para [0004], [0009][0011 ], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the package, as disclosed by Janting’136, as to include a single-layer repellency coating comprising a perfiuoropolyether compound, as disclosed by Koshikawa’300, to provide resistance, mold releasability, and repelling properties, as disclosed by Koshikawa’300 (see Koshikawa’300 ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The method of claim 10, wherein the surface treatment coating is applied by dipping, rolling, spraying, syringe dispensing, stamping, jet printing, wiping, or gravure printing” (Janting’136, page 10, line 25 – page 11, line 1, ‘By choosing a material having a low viscosity and/or a low surface tension, these edges and/or corners may be coated, for example by applying a dip coating process, for applying the first layer .... hydrocarbons like the GURONICO, a group of materials from Paul Jordan, Electrotechnische Fabrik GmbH & Co,, may be applied bye. g. a dipping technique’).
Regarding claim 12, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The method of claim 10, wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the single-layer coating (1)” (Janting’136, page 10, line 31- page 11, line 4, ‘hydrocarbons like the GURONICO, a group of materials from Paul Jordan, Electrotechnische Fabrik GmbH & Co., may be applied bye. g. a dipping technique. The GURONICO materials are soft and water-repellent and therefore suitable for the first layer of material to absorb shock and vibrations, and furthermore the materials are suitable for the outer protective layer because of their water-repellent characteristics’).
Regarding claim 13, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 further teaches, “The method of claim 12, wherein the perfluoropolyether compound comprises one or more of a perfluoropolyether siloxane and perfluoropolyether phosphonic acid” (Koshikawa’300, ¶ [0004], ¶ [0011] - ¶ [0014], ‘Rf1 represents a divalent perfiuoropolyether group represented by the following general formula (4) or (5)’; ¶ [0012], ‘cyclic organopolysiloxane which is represented by the following general formula’) .
Claims 4-8, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janting’136 and Koshikawa’300 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20070034977 A1, hereinafter Sasaki’977).
Regarding claim 4, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 discloses the electronic circuit package of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the two-layer repellency coating (2).
However, Sasaki’977, drawn to electronic packages, does disclose wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the two-layer repellency coating (2) (fig. 1, ¶ [0027], ‘It is further provided with the layer (water repellent layer) 4 of transparent resin on the layer 3 to enhance water repellency’.; ¶ [0031], ‘The coating solution is composed of a metallic salt solution and reducing reagent solution, which are spread and mixed with each other on the collector surface’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in in the art at the time of invention to modify the package, as disclosed by Janting’136, as to include wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the two-layer repellency coating (2), as disclosed by Sasaki’977, to improve the repellency of the coating, as disclosed by Sasaki’977 (see Sasaki’977, ¶ [0027], ¶ [00331).
Regarding claim 5, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 further discloses wherein the first layer (i) demonstrates a dry film thickness of 5 to 50 nm (Sasaki’977, ¶ [0033]- thickness is preferably 300 nm or less ... preferably 50 to 300 nm; ¶ [0050] , ¶ [00521).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, ‘wherein the zwitterionic-functional compound comprises 3-{[dimethyl(3,3-dimethoxysilyl,3-silanol)propyl] ammonio} propane-1-sulfonate’, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 may not be explicit on the use of specified material of the zwitterionic-functional compound. However, the selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to have the 3-{[dimethyl(3,3-dimethoxysilyl,3-silanol)propyl] ammonio} propane-1-sulfonate material since such combination of elements is conventional and suitable in the art.
Regarding claim 7 and 18, ‘The electronic circuit package of claim 6 wherein the first layer (i) demonstrates a dry film thickness of 5 to 50 nm’, while the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization.
The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that 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" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 further teaches, “The electronic circuit package of claim 4, wherein the repellency layer (ii) demonstrates a dry film thickness of 1 to 20 nm (see SASAKI para [0052])”.
Regarding claim 15, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 further discloses wherein the surface treatment coating (b) comprises the two-layer coating (2) (Sasaki’977, fig. 1, ¶ [0027]- ‘It is further provided with the layer (water repellent layer) 4 of transparent resin on the layer 3 to enhance water repellency’.; ¶ [0031]-‘The coating solution is composed of a metallic salt solution and reducing reagent solution, which are spread and mixed with each other on the collector surface’).
Regarding claim 16, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 further discloses wherein the first layer (i) is spray applied to the surface of the metal leadframe and demonstrates a dry film thickness of 5 to 50 nm (Sasaki’977 ¸¶ [0031]- ‘It is more preferable to use a coating method in which a spreading member is not in contact with the surface to be coated, e.g., spin, flow or spray coating, than a method in which it is in contact with the surface, e.g., roll, bar or brush coating. When spin coating is employed, for example, it is preferable to spread a silver nitrate solution and reducing reagent solution individually from different nozzles onto the collector surface dropwise, and mix them with each other thereon. So is in the case of spray coating.; ¶ [0033]- The reflection layer is preferably at least 50 nm thick; ¶ [0033], ¶ [0050], ¶ [00521).
Regarding claim 19, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 and Sasaki’977 further teaches, wherein the repellency layer (ii) is spray applied to the first layer (i) (Sasaki’977 ¸¶ [0031]- It is more preferable to use a coating method in which a spreading member is not in contact with the surface to be coated, e.g., spin, flow or spray coating, than a method in which it is in contact with the surface, e.g., roll, bar or brush _coating. When spin coating is employed, for example, it is preferable to spread a silver nitrate solution and reducing reagent solution individually from different nozzles onto the collector surface dropwise, and mix them with each other thereon. So is in the case of spray coating), but fails to specifically disclose demonstrating a dry film thickness of 2 to 20 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, demonstrating a dry film thickness of 2 to 20 nm, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 as applied to claim 12 as above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 6445076 B1, hereinafter Shimizu’076).
Regarding claim 14, Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300 discloses the method of claim 12, but fail to disclose, wherein the surface treatment coating is applied to the surface of the metal leadframe by stamping.
However, Shimizu’076, drawn to lead frame manufacturing, does disclose wherein the surface treatment coating is applied to the surface of the metal leadframe by stamping (col 5, In 41-45, 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the package, as disclosed by Janting’136 modified with Koshikawa’300, as to include disclose wherein the surface treatment coating is applied to the surface of the metal leadframe by stamping, as disclosed by Shimizu’076, to overcome flash, poor yield and cracking, as disclosed by Shimizu’076 (see Shimizu’076, col 1, In 27-41).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janting’136 in view of Sasaki’977) and KUHARA et al. (JP H11307710 A, hereinafter Kuhara’710).
Regarding claim 20, Janting’136 discloses an electronic circuit package (FIG. 3, Pg. 20, In 14-15- In Figure 3 two embodiments, L, M, wherein an microsystem as well as an integrated circuit (IC) are encapsulated according to the present invention) comprising:
(a) at least one metal leadframe having a surface (FIG. 1, Pg. 21, In 26- 7 is a supporting substrate, leadframe etc.);
(b) a surface treatment coating applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe to form at least one coated leadframe (FIG. 1, FIG. 3, Pg. 22, In 17-19- Figure 3 shows two embodiments (Land M) of an encapsulated multichip microsystem. In a first embodiment, L, an encapsulated device like E in Figure 1 has been coated with a first conducting layer 14); and
(c) an encapsulating polymeric layer that is molded over portions of the at least one coated leadframe (Pg. 6, In 4-10- one layer of material may be adapted to shield the microsystem effectively against different environmental effects so that different parts of the one layer of material shield against different environmental effects according to the composition of the layer. The plurality of materials may for example comprise a polymer, and the polymer may comprise a filler).
Janting’136 fails to teach or suggest wherein the surface treatment coating comprises a two-layer repellency coating comprising: (i) a first layer deposited from an aqueous solution of a metal salt, applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe, wherein the first layer demonstrates a dry film thickness of 5 to 50 nm; and (ii) a repellency layer applied to the first layer, wherein the repellency layer comprises a zwitterionic-functional compound.
However, Sasaki’977, drawn to electronic packages, does disclose wherein the surface treatment coating comprises a two-layer repellency coating comprising: (i) a first layer deposited from an aqueous solution of a metal salt, applied to the surface of the at least one metal leadframe, wherein the first layer demonstrates a dry film thickness of 5 to 50 nm (para [0031]- The coating solution is composed of a metallic salt solution and reducing reagent solution, which are spread and mixed with each other on the collector surface. ¶ [0033]- The reflection layer is preferably at least 50 nm thick); and (ii) a repellency layer applied to the first layer ((FIG. 1, para (0027]- It is further provided with the layer (water repellent layer) 4 of transparent resin on the layer 3 to enhance water repellency).
But Janting’136 modified with Sasaki’977 is silent upon the provision of wherein the repellency layer comprises a zwitterionic-functional compound.
However, Kuhara’710 teaches the use of zwitterionic with leadframe (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Janting’136 modified with Sasaki’977 and Kuhara’710 to include zwitterionic according to the teachings of Kuhara’710 with a motivation of improving the characteristic of the leadframe as described by Kuhara’710, ¶ [0005], ¶ [0006] etc.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to select zwitterionic when forming a coating of a leadframe, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
