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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 11/10/25.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 10 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 19-21 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-21 are pending and claims 11-13 and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14, 15 and 17-21 are subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 21, the following limitation is indefinite:
“wherein the second material satisfies at least one of the following three requirements:
(a) having a magnetic permeability higher than the first material;
(b) having an electrical resistivity higher than the first material;…”
The claim language is indefinite because it may be interpreted to mean the requirements (a) and (b) in claim 21 supercedes/replaces the requirement in claim 1 that the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero.
In claim 1, the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero. The claim language is unclear if requirements (a) and (b) in claim 21 is a further requirement of the second material. For example, the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero and the second material further has a magnetic permeability higher than the first material (e.g. requirement (a)). For example, the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero and the second material further has an electrical resistivity higher than the first material (e.g. requirement (b)). The metes and bounds of the claim is not clear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 4:
In claim 4, the limitation “the second material…has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero” does not further limit claim 1.
Regarding claim 5:
In claim 5, the limitation “the second material…has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero” does not further limit claim 1.
Regarding claim 21:
In claim 21, the limitation “the second material…having a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero” does not further limit 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trang et al., US Publication No. 2020/0343352 A1
1. A semiconductor device comprising (see figs. 2A, 4, 12 and 13A):
at least one semiconductor element (100, 200) having a switching function;
a conductive member (420 in fig. 4; corresponding to 1318 in fig. 13A; drain lead at para. [0081] – [0082]) that forms a path of a current switched by the semiconductor element, and that is made of a first material;
a covering layer (1260 in fig. 13A) that covers (e.g. covers a sidewall of) at least a portion of the conductive member (420; 1318), and that is made of a second material; and
a gate lead (415 in fig. 4; corresponding to 1314 in fig. 13A; gate lead at para. [0081] – [0082]) to which a voltage for driving the semiconductor device is applied, wherein the second material (e.g. of 1260) has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero (e.g. dielectric loss tangent at para. [0140]), and
the gate lead (415; 1314) includes a portion extending along the thickness direction of the at least one semiconductor element (100, 200). See Trang at para. [0001] – [0230], figs. 1-25.
7. The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a relative magnetic permeability of the second material is not less than 10 (e.g. ferrite, para. [0141])
9. The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric loss tangent of the second material is not less than 0.01, para. [0140].
18. The semiconductor device according to claim 1 wherein the semiconductor element is one of a SiC MOSET, a SiC IGBT, a Si MOSFET, a Si IGBT, and a GaN HEMT, para. [0071].
21. The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the second material satisfies at least one of the following three requirements:
(a) having a magnetic permeability higher than the first material;
(b) having an electrical resistivity higher than the first material; and
(c) having a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero (e.g. dielectric loss tangent at para. [0140])
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(s) 2, 4, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trang et al., US Publication No. 2020/0343352 A1 in view of Cho et al,. US Publication No. 2018/0211904 A1.
Regarding claim 2:
Trang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the second material is a magnetic conductor having a magnetic permeability (e.g. ferrite or nickel), para. [0141].
Trang is silent regarding the material of the first material.
Thus, Trang does not expressly teach the second material having a magnetic permeability “…higher than the first material and having an electrical resistivity higher than the first material.
Trang teaches the conductive member (420; 1318) is a lead but is silent regarding the material.
In an analogous art, Cho teaches leads may be a copper lead or a similar conductive material and act as the current carrying path. See Cho at para. [0060].
One of ordinary skill in the art modifying Trang with Cho to form the conductive member (e.g. leads 420; 1318) as a copper first material will arrive at the claimed limitation:
“wherein the second material (e.g. ferrite or nickel) is a magnetic conductor having a magnetic permeability higher than the first material (e.g. copper) and having an electrical resistivity higher than the first material”
Regarding claim 4:
Trang teaches the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero, para. [0140].
Trang and Cho teach “the second material has a magnetic permeability higher than the first material” as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5:
Trang teaches the second material has a dielectric loss tangent larger than zero, para. [0140].
Trang and Cho teach “the second material has an electrical resistivity higher than the first material” as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 8:
Trang teaches the second material (e.g. of 1260) may be a dielectric material or magnetic material such as ferrite or nickel, para. [0140] – [0141].
Trang is silent regarding the material of the first material.
Thus, Trang does not expressly teach “the electrical resistivity of the second material is not less than twice the electrical resistivity of the first material.”
Trang teaches the conductive member (420; 1318) is a lead but is silent regarding the material.
In an analogous art, Cho teaches leads may be a copper lead or a similar conductive material and act as the current carrying path. See Cho at para. [0060].
One of ordinary skill in the art modifying Trang with Cho to form the conductive member (e.g. leads 420; 1318) as a copper first material will arrive at the claimed limitation:
“wherein the electrical resistivity of the second material (e.g. dielectric, ferrite or nickel) is not less than twice the electrical resistivity of the first material (e.g. copper)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trang with the teachings of Hira because copper is an art recognized material suitable for forming a lead. It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trang, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6:
Trang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach the covering layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 5 µm.
However, Trang teaches or suggests the height and width of the covering layer (1260) correlates with addressing capacitive or magnetic coupling at para. [0137] – [0138].
Thus, absent any disclosure by the Applicant that the covering layer having a thickness of 1 µm to 5 µm is critical or provides for unexpected results, such a thickness can be considered within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art or by the guidance provided by Trang. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges:
[W]here 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)
“Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” (Emphasis added.)
In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)…Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions. (Emphasis added.)
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yuzurihara, KR 20150105491 A (see attached English machine translation) and Otake et al., US Publication No. 2016/0308523 A1.
Regarding claim 10:
Trang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches:
(see fig. 13A) a capacitor (1336, 1332) having a first end and a second end for electrical connection, wherein the at least one semiconductor element (100) includes a plurality of semiconductor elements (200, plurality of transistor cells)…
the plurality of semiconductor elements (200) includes a first semiconductor element…
the conductive member (420; 1318) includes a first metal layer connected to a drain electrode (e.g. para. [0081] – [0082]) of the first semiconductor element.
Trang teaches the semiconductor device is part of an RF amplifier, para. [0066].
Trang does not expressly teach a half-bridge.
In an analogous art, Yuzurihara teaches an RF amplifer comprises a half-bridge, pages 1-2.
Specifically, Yuzurihara teaches:
(see fig. 11) a capacitor (C2) having a first end and a second end for electrical connection, wherein the at least one semiconductor element includes a plurality of semiconductor elements (MOSFETs) that form a half-bridge including at least a pair of upper arm and lower arm (e.g. pairs of upper and lower MOSFETs in fig. 11; also see “arm of the bridge circuit” at pages 12 and 23.)
the plurality of semiconductor elements includes a first semiconductor element in the upper arm and a second semiconductor element in the lower arm (e.g. pairs of upper and lower MOSFETs in fig. 11). See Yuzurihara at pages 2-3.
Trang does not expressly teach power leads.
In an analogous art, Otake teaches:
(see figs. 15-18) a first power lead (e.g. P(D1)) connected to the first metal layer (e.g. of a drain lead, D1), and a second power lead (e.g. N(S4)) connected to a source electrode (S4) of a second semiconductor element (Q4),
the first end of the capacitor (CB) is connected to the first power lead (e.g. P(D1)), and the second end of the capacitor is connected to the second power lead (e.g. N(S4)), para. [0060] – [0068].
Because Otake’s first power lead (e.g. P(D1)) and second power lead (e.g. N(S4)) extend horizontally parallel in the semiconductor device, one of ordinary skill in the art modifying Trang with Otake to from a first power lead and a second power lead would form “the covering layer includes a first portion covering the first power lead and a second portion covering the second power lead”, as recited in the claim, because Trang’s covering layer (1260 in fig. 13A) extends perpendicular to the leads (1318, 1314) such that the covering layer covers a side wall of the leads/power leads.
Regarding claim 17:
Trang further teaches:
wherein the conductive member (1318 in fig. 13A; e.g. drain lead) includes a conductor (e.g. material of 1318) interposed between the source electrode (e.g. 205 in fig. 2A is a source contact) of the second semiconductor element (200) and…
Trang does not expressly teach a second power lead.
Otake teaches a second power lead (e.g. N(S4)) in figs. 15 and 18.
One of ordinary skill in the art modifying Trang with Otake would find it obvious to form the conductive member (1318, drain lead) includes a conductor interposed between the source electrode of the second semiconductor element and the second power lead because Otake teaches in fig. 15, the drain lead (D1) is interposed between the source electrode (e.g. at SST1) of semiconductor element (Q1) the second power lead (e.g. N(S4)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trang with the teachings of Yuzurihara because “…a class D amplification circuit in the RF band by a conventionally known bridge circuit configuration…an example in which a full-bridge circuit is constituted by a switching element of a MOSFET is shown.” (Emphasis added). See Yuzurihara at page 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trang with the teachings of Otake because (i) A positive-side power terminal P and the negative-side power terminal N enables a power supply voltage E to be connected (e.g. Otake at para. [0128]); and (ii) “There can be provided the power circuit capable of reducing the misoperation and the parasitic oscillation and capable of realizing the high speed switching performance.” (e.g. Otake at Abstract).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hirashima et al., US Publication No. 2003/0038360 A1.
Regarding claims 19-20:
Trang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach:
a sealing resin covering the semiconductor element, a part of the conductive member, and a part of the gate lead,
wherein the gate lead has an L-shape protruding from a surface of the sealing resin facing in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction,
wherein the gate lead is supported by the sealing resin.
In an analogous art, Hirashima teaches:
(see fig. 1) a sealing resin (29) covering the semiconductor element, a part of a conductive member (38) and a part of the gate lead (37), wherein the gate lead (37) has an L-shape protruding from a surface of the sealing resin (29) facing in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction,
wherein the gate lead (37) is supported by the sealing resin (29). See Hira para. [0090] – [0098], para. [0132].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Trang with the teachings of Hirashima because (i) “…the external resistance can be significantly reduced...” (e.g. Hira at para. [0009] – [0010].); and (ii) “Further, since the inner leads 36 are separately supported, the inner leads 36 and the resin encapsulant 29 contact each other in a great area, which suppresses absorption of moisture into the interior of the package 2 and consequently provides the MOSFET 70 with improved anti-humidity characteristics.” (e.g. Hira at para. [0169])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
13 January 2026
Prosecution Insights