DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The amendment filed 11/13/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the entirety of newly introduced paragraph [0013.1].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 32-38 and 45-48 are 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.
Regarding claims 32 and 36, the limitation “a second template having the cutouts” is unclear as to how the relationship between the first and second templates. Specifically, the element is recited as a “second template” which would appear to indicate a second and separate element from the “first template,” however “the cutouts” would appear to indicate the same cutouts and therefore the same element.
Regarding claims 32, the limitation “positioning the metal mold with a second side facing away from the first side on the at least partially dried first sinter layer,” is unclear as to if the “positioning” is modified by the “a second side facing away from the first side,” and as to what is “on the at least partially dried first sinter layer.”
Regarding claims 32 and 36, the limitation “contacting two contact areas of the power semiconductor, which are electrically isolated from one another and disposed on a side of a power semiconductor facing the substrate, on the second sinter layer” is unclear as to what element(s) is “on the second sinter layer.” It is further unclear as to what is “a power semiconductor,” (e.g. a power semiconductor device, a power semiconductor layer, etc.).
Regarding claims 32 and 36, the limitation “connect the two contact areas of the power semiconductor separately with a material bond to the substrate” is unclear as to if the two contact areas are connected to each other. Further, it is unclear as to how “a material bond” is related to previously recited elements (e.g. the first and second sintered layers, the structured metal connecting layer).
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “positioning the metal mold, the metal mold having a first side coated with a second sinter layer using a second template having the cutouts and a second side facing away from the first side, with the second side on the first sinter layer,” is unclear as to what is being modified by “using a second template” (i.e. the “positioning” or the “coated”) and as to what is being modified by “with the second side on the first sinter layer.”
Regarding claims 34 and 38, the limitation “producing the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer from a suspension which contains metal solid state particles and a binding means,” is unclear if both of the sintered layers are formed from a single suspension.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “mutually isolated” is unclear as to what it requires. Specifically, “mutually” is understood to require “directed and received by each toward the other,” whereas “isolated” would be understood to require “far from others,” and therefore it would seem the two words in the limitation are contradictory.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “the template” is unclear as to how it is related to the first and second templates recited in claim 32.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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) 32, 35, 36, 45 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besendoerfer et al. (EP 2498283, using machine translation provided herewith; herein “Besendoerfer”) in view of Oh et al. (US 2021/0057372; herein “Oh”).
Regarding claims 32 and 36, Besendoerfer discloses in Fig. 3 and related text a method for producing a power semiconductor module having a power semiconductor and a substrate, the method comprising:
applying a first sinter layer (16’, see pg. 6, para. 3) to the substrate (24) using a first template having cutouts (e.g. stencil printing, see pg. 5, para. 3; further note that 16 and 16’ are understood to be substantially similar elements and therefore would be processed the same way, see pg. 6, para. 3);
removing the first template (see Fig. 3e which shows the stencil has been removed prior to further processing) and at least partially drying the first sinter layer (see pg. 6, para. 5; see also pg. 5, para. 4; further note that 16 and 16’ are understood to be substantially similar elements and therefore would be processed the same way, see pg. 6, para. 3);
applying a second sinter layer (16, see pg. 5, last paragraph) to a first side of a metal mold (18, see pg. 6, para. 8 and pg. 2 last line) using a second template having the cutouts (e.g. stencil printing, see pg. 5, para. 3);
at least partially drying the second sinter layer (see pg. 5, last paragraph);
positioning the metal mold with a second side facing away from the first side on the at least partially dried first sinter layer (see Fig. 3e-f);
contacting a contact area of the power semiconductor, which is disposed on a side of the power semiconductor (36) facing the substrate (24), on the second sinter layer (16); and
sintering the first sinter layer and the second sinter layer (see pg. 6, para. 7) to produce together with the metal mold a structured metal connecting layer and to thereby connect the contact area of the power semiconductor with a material bond to the substrate (24).
Besendoerfer does not disclose
contacting two contact areas, which are electrically isolated from one another, on the side of a power semiconductor; and
sintering the first sinter layer and the second sinter layer to produce a structured metal connecting layer and connect the two contact areas of the power semiconductor with a material bond to the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a method of making a power semiconductor module comprising
contacting two contact areas (102 and 103, see [0036]), which are electrically isolated from one another (see [0035]), on a side of a power semiconductor; and
sintering the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer (133 and 134, see [0066]-[0067]) to produce a structured metal connecting layer and connect the two contact areas of the power semiconductor with a material bond to the substrate.
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 device of Besendoerfer by having contacting two contact areas, which are electrically isolated from one another, on a side of a power semiconductor and sintering the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer to produce a structured metal connecting layer and connect the two contact areas of the power semiconductor with a material bond to the substrate, as taught by Oh, in order to provide contacts for an IGBT device (see [0035]) for such applications as vehicles and home appliances (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 35, the combined device shows wherein the metal mold comprises at least two mutually isolated metal plates (Besendoerfer shows a single metal plate for a single contact, and Oh shows two contacts; thus the combination would result in two metal plates), and the at least one second sinter layer is applied to the at least two metal plates of the metal mold by the template (Besendoerfer: see pg. 5, para. 3).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the combined device shows wherein the two isolated contact areas are contacting the second sinter layer by pressing (Besendoerfer: see pg. 6, para. 7).
Claim(s) 33-34, 37-38, and 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besendoerfer in view of Oh, as applied to claims 32 and 36 above, and in view of Oohiraki et al. (US 2021/0005544; herein “Oohiraki”).
Regarding claims 33, 37, 47 and 48, Besendoerfer does not explicitly disclose wherein the power semiconductor is contacted by the structured metal connecting layer at a distance from the substrate of at least 70 µm; at least 200 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Oohiraki teaches in Fig. 3C and related text a semiconductor module wherein the power semiconductor (30) is contacted by the structured connecting layer (70/20/70, see [0029] and ) at a distance from the substrate of at least 70 µm; at least 200 µm (20 is 0.1-2mm, see [0029]; thus the total thickness of 20 and two layers of 70 is 100-2000 µm, which overlaps the claimed range).
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 device of Besendoerfer by having the thickness in the claimed range, as taught by Oohiraki, in order to achieve the desired electrical and mechanical bonding effects. Further, note that the range disclosed by Oohiraki overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting mechanical, thermal, and electrical characteristics. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Besendoerfer to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired balance of mechanical, thermal and electrical effects, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 34 and 38, Besendoerfer does not explicitly disclose producing the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer from a suspension which contains metal solid state particles and a binding means.
In the same field of endeavor, Oohiraki teaches in Fig. 3C and related text a semiconductor module wherein the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer (top and bottom 70, see [0051]) from a suspension which contains metal solid state particles and a binding means (see [0051]).
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 device of Besendoerfer by having the first sintered layer and the second sintered layer from a suspension which contains metal solid state particles and a binding means, as taught by Oohiraki, in order to achieve a paste with a composition which is known to be sinterable. Note that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8-9) that Besendoerfer does not teach or suggest the claimed invention because the reference coats a second (sacrificial) pre-sintering support rather than the connecting object.
In response the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the claim requires “applying a first sinter layer to the substrate” and “applying a second sinter layer to a first side of a metal mold,” which Besendoerfer shows. Specifically, it is noted that in accordance with MPEP 2111, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore the claim limitation “applying” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and does not a direct coating of the layer to the metal mold. Rather “apply” is defined as “to bring into contact with something; put on” (see American Heritage Dictionary). Accordingly, the first sinter layer 16’ is “applied” to the substrate 24 as shown in Fig. 3j and the second sinter layer 16 is “applied” to the metal mold 18 as shown in Fig. 3b. The fact that 16 is first applied to 10 does not compromise the fact that it is subsequently applied to metal mold 18.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 12/17/2025
Prosecution Insights