DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 23 July 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 8, in the reply filed on 23 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 July 2025.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “trench gate [] provided in the cell region” (as in claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors in line 5 (suggested correction: delete “to the semiconductor device”) and line 7 (suggested correction: delete “to the drive circuit”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0162219 A1 to Terai et al. (hereinafter “Terai”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Terai (Figs. 11-12) discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor element PD (not labeled in Fig. 12; see ¶ 0022) diced into a square shape in top view from a semiconductor wafer (Figs. 11-12; ¶ 0054); and
a sealing resin sealing the semiconductor element (¶ 0059), wherein the semiconductor element includes a cell region 1 (¶ 0022) through which a main current flows, a terminal region (Fig. 12 - dotted line border region around 1) provided on an outer peripheral side of the cell region, and a protective film 2/7 (¶ 0053) covering an upper surface of an outer peripheral portion of the terminal region (¶ 0053), the protective film 2/7 includes spread portions spreading to outermost ends at four corners of the semiconductor element (Fig. 12 - 7 at corners; ¶ 0054), and the spread portions have a cut section 6 (¶ 0037) continuous with a cut section 6 of the terminal region (Figs. 11-12), and do not spread to the outermost ends in four sides (Figs. 11-12 - substrate surface 3 is uncovered; ¶ 0033) excluding the four corners of the semiconductor element (Fig. 12 - four corners are covered by 7; ¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Terai discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the protective film 2/7 contains polyimide (¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 5, Terai discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a semiconductor material of the semiconductor element is SiC (¶ 0058).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai.
Regarding claim 3, Terai discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the spread portions spread at least 200 μm in the four corners of the semiconductor element to the outermost ends. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a spread of at least 200 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the size of the protective film, and thus the spread portions, is considered a result effective variable because it affects the ability of the protective film to prevent peeling and cracking (Terai, ¶¶ 0065-66). Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the size of the protective film and the spread of its spread portions according to the application and to minimize peeling and cracking.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2020-4881 to Asai et al. (citations refer to the English machine translation filed with the 14 November 2024 IDS; hereinafter “Asai”).
Regarding claim 4, Terai discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, including an IGBT (¶ 0058), however fails to expressly disclose wherein a trench gate is provided in the cell region, and a step portion having a depth equal to that of the trench gate is provided in a portion of the terminal region covered with the spread portion. In the same field of endeavor, Asai discloses a semiconductor device 1 having a trench gate (¶ 0014) in a trench 34 formed together with step portion 12 (¶ 0023). 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 Terai to include the semiconductor device as in Asai for the purpose of providing a functional device (IGBT) in an art recognized way, and to provide the step portion having a depth equal to that of the trench gate provided as recited to reduce the number of steps required to manufacture the device and to suppress chipping during the dicing process (Asai, ¶ 0007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0241391 A1 to Chandrasekaran et al. (hereinafter “Chandrasekaran”).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Terai discloses a semiconductor device according to claim 1, including a switching element such as an IGBT or MOSFET (¶ 0058), however fails to expressly disclose: a power conversion apparatus comprising: a conversion circuit including a semiconductor device according to claim 1, and configured to convert and output input power; a drive circuit configured to output a drive signal for driving the semiconductor device to the semiconductor device; and a control circuit configured to output a control signal for controlling the drive circuit to the drive circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Chandrasekaran discloses a power conversion apparatus comprising: a conversion circuit including IGBTs and MOSFETs, and configured to convert and output input power; a drive circuit configured to output a drive signal for driving the semiconductor device to the semiconductor device; and a control circuit configured to output a control signal for controlling the drive circuit to the drive circuit (¶ 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the semiconductor device of Terai in the power conversion apparatus of Chandrasekaran for the purpose of providing necessary components, IGBTs and MOSFETs, in an art-recognized, conventional manner (as exemplified by Terai, ¶ 0058).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
26 September 2025
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights