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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicants arguments, filed on 03/16/2026, the amendments to independent claims 1, 6, 16, 25 and 26 overcome the previous prior art rejection. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection using the same base reference is used below with a new reference to Laven et al. (20160190123) teaching the amended limitation. With respect to claim 5, the applicant argues that the average effective distance is material for the device functionality. The examiner agrees, but with respect to the rejection, just stating that one average effective distance is greater than another average effective distance with no indication of how much greater, or reference to the exact distance, does not materially change the function of the device. For example, there could be two average effective distances with a difference to the 1/1000000th level of precision. One is functionally still greater than the other but the level of which it is greater than would not materially affect the functionality of the device, due to the small nature of how much it is greater. Additionally, every manufactured device has error tolerance built in, that is there is not exact sameness in precision to the infinite degree. Thus, it would be reasonable for two average effective distances to be calculated to be the same, or even to be measured the same to certain precision, but if one goes to one decimal place further there may be a difference, of which there would be no materially difference in how it functions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. If the applicant wishes to make the claim more precise in designating some measurement or level of precision in how much the one average effective distance is greater than another, that is highly recommended to make the claim more precise and clear to what is being claimed.
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) 1-3, 6-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1) in view of Mauder et al (US 10141404 B2) and in further view of Laven et al (US 20160190123).
Hutzler et al teaches
[claim 1] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a first section and a second section, both configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 below show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 below);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in both the first section and the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in both the first section and the second section, wherein the first control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a first control signal and the second control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a second control signal (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 below where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 below in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 below. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 below. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 below, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal and second control signal);
and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in both the first section and the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes, wherein the respective at least one of the first control electrodes is configured to induce an inversion channel for load current conduction in the associated semiconductor channel structure (paragraph 0011, figures 1 and 2, where element 112 is the channel zone and each channel zone is associated with a control electrode [element 122]. Where the first set of control electrodes, designated by elements 122 in figures 1 and 2 below in the first row of both the first and second active area as shown in figure 2 below, such that the channel structure extends both in the x-direction [as shown in figure 2 of Hutzler et al] as well as the y-direction [as designated by figure 1 of Hutzler et al], and the they create an inversion channel as described in paragraph 0011).
[claim 6] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a first section and a second section, both configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 below show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 below);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in both the first section and the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in both the first section and the second section, wherein the first control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a first control signal and the second control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a second control signal (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 below where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 below in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 below. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 below. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 below, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal and second control signal);
and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in both the first section and the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes, the respective at least one of the first control electrodes being configured to induce an inversion channel for load current conduction in the associated semiconductor channel structure (paragraph 0011, figures 1 and 2, where element 112 is the channel zone and each channel zone is associated with a control electrode [element 122]. Where the first set of control electrodes, designated by elements 122 in figures 1 and 2 below in the first row of both the first and second active area as shown in figure 2 below, such that the channel structure extends both in the x-direction [as shown in figure 2 of Hutzler et al] as well as the y-direction [as designated by figure 1 of Hutzler et al], and the they create an inversion channel as described in paragraph 0011).
[claim 16] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a a second section, configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 below show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 below);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in the second section, wherein the first control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a first control signal and the second control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a second control signal (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 below where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 below in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 below. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 below. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 below, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal and second control signal);
and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes, the respective at least one of the first control electrodes being configured to induce an inversion channel for load current conduction in the associated semiconductor channel structure (paragraph 0011, figures 1 and 2, where element 112 is the channel zone and each channel zone is associated with a control electrode [element 122]. Where the first set of control electrodes, designated by elements 122 in figures 1 and 2 below in the first row of both the first and second active area as shown in figure 2 below, such that the channel structure extends both in the x-direction [as shown in figure 2 of Hutzler et al] as well as the y-direction [as designated by figure 1 of Hutzler et al], and the they create an inversion channel as described in paragraph 0011).
[claim 25] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a second section, configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 below show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 below);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in the second section, wherein the first control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a first control signal and the second control electrodes are configured to be subjected to a second control signal (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 below where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 below in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 below. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 below. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 below, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal and second control signal);
and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes, each of the semiconductor channel structures comprising a source region of a first conductivity type and a body region of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type, the body region separating the source region from a drift region of the first conductivity type, the respective at least one of the first control electrodes being configured to induce an inversion channel within the body region of the associated channel structure contributing to the load current (paragraph 0011, figures 1 and 2, where element 112 is the channel zone and each channel zone is associated with a control electrode [element 122]. Where the first set of control electrodes, designated by elements 122 in figures 1 and 2 below in the first row of both the first and second active area as shown in figure 2 below, such that the channel structure extends both in the x-direction [as shown in figure 2 of Hutzler et al] as well as the y-direction [as designated by figure 1 of Hutzler et al], and the they create an inversion channel as described in paragraph 0011. Where each channel structure comprises a source region of first conductivity type, the body [labeled “a section of a channel zone of second conductivity type” in paragraph 0011] of second conductivity type, and a drift region of first conductivity type).
However, Hutzler et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] wherein, in a forward bias state: the first section exhibits a first characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of a voltage of the first control signal; and the second section exhibits a second characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of the voltage of the first control signal, at least the second characteristic transfer curves being changeable based on a voltage of the second control signal, wherein for a given voltage of the first control signal corresponding to a forward-conduction-state of the power semiconductor device, the change of load current in the first section observed for a given change of the voltage of the second control signal is smaller as compared to the corresponding change of the load current in the second section, wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
[claim 6] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes, wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
[claim 7] wherein an influence of the voltage of the second control signal on the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes in the second section is greater than compared to the corresponding influence in the first section.
[claim 16] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes, wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
[claim 25] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes, wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
However, Mauder et al does teach
[claim 1] wherein, in a forward bias state (col 1 lines 39-45, the device is in a forward current state which is equivalent to a forward bias state):
the first section exhibits a first characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of a voltage of the first control signal; and the second section exhibits a second characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of the voltage of the first control signal, at least the second characteristic transfer curves being changeable based on a voltage of the second control signal (col 8 line 55 – col 9 line 2, col 9 lines 16-30, where the first cell [element 141] and second cell [element 142] are two distinct regions with two distinct load currents [item 151 is the first load current and defines a transfer curve, item 152 is the second load current and defines a second transfer curve], and a control signal on the first item brings a load current for both the first and second cell region, where the second control signal can affect the second region [col 9 lines 16-30 explain that there are two control signals for the two regions, and the first signal can control both or they can be separate])
wherein for a given voltage of the first control signal corresponding to a forward-conduction-state of the power semiconductor device, the change of load current in the first section observed for a given change of the voltage of the second control signal is smaller as compared to the corresponding change of the load current in the second section (col 12 lines 17-21, where the second load current, which is designated in the second section, is at most 30% of the total load current indicating that the rest of the total load current is through the first section and thus the second load current is substantially smaller than the first load current).
[claim 6] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes (col 14 lines 10-19, where the second control signal influences the inversion channel by completely depleting the mobile charge carriers and thus influencing the inversion channel of the first region).
[claim 7] wherein an influence of the voltage of the second control signal on the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes in the second section is greater than compared to the corresponding influence in the first section (col 14 lines 10-19, where the second control signal influences the inversion channel by completely depleting the mobile charge carriers and thus influencing the inversion channel of the first region. The influence is greater in the second section because it causes an inversion of holes in the second section whereas in the first section no inversion of holes is created, thus the influence is different and greater).
[claim 16] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes (col 14 lines 10-19, where the second control signal influences the inversion channel by completely depleting the mobile charge carriers and thus influencing the inversion channel of the first region).
[claim 25] wherein in the second section, a voltage of the second control signal influences the inversion channels controlled by the first control electrodes (col 14 lines 10-19, where the second control signal influences the inversion channel by completely depleting the mobile charge carriers and thus influencing the inversion channel of the first region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al to incorporate the teachings of Mauder et al in order to control the power semiconductor device with two signals to enhance and optimize performance.
However, Hutzler et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claims 1, 6, 16, 25] wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
However, Laven et al does teach
[claims 1, 6, 16, 25] wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section (paragraph 0072, figure 2A, where C1 is the first control signal and C2 is the second control signal, where element 150 is in place of the first active region, and element 160 is in place of the second active region, where the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels of the second section [element 160] and has a reduced influence on the inversion channels of the first section [element 150] when compared to the influence it has on its own section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Laven et al in order to provide more control to the power semiconductor device, thus giving greater precision in controlling the device.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hutzler et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 2] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the change of the voltage of the second control signal is a change from a voltage corresponding to a blocking state between Vth,p and Vth,nto a voltage corresponding to another blocking-state below Vth,por vice-versa, where Vth,n is a control threshold voltage for inducing an electron inversion channel and Vth,p is a further control threshold voltage for inducing a hole inversion channel.
[claim 3] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the load current change in the first section is below 30%, and wherein the load current change in the second section is above 30%.
However, another embodiment of Mauder et al does teach
[claim 2] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the change of the voltage of the second control signal is a change from a voltage corresponding to a blocking state between Vth,p and Vth,n to a voltage corresponding to another blocking-state below Vth,p or vice-versa, where Vth,n is a control threshold voltage for inducing an electron inversion channel and Vth,p is a further control threshold voltage for inducing a hole inversion channel (col 13 lines 44-59, where the second terminal [second control terminal] may have a second voltage applied which is between a second voltage range [designated as the ‘another blocking-state’] which then allows for conduction between the second type semiconductor device, which is a hold-inversion channel allowing conduction of the holes between the terminals).
[claim 3] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the load current change in the first section is below 30%, and wherein the load current change in the second section is above 30% (col 7 lines 34-43, where the first load current change changes 10%-25% and the second load current changes 75%-90%, which respectively are below 30% and above 30%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified with another embodiment of Mauder et al in order to set certain thresholds for the load current to allow for maximal current flow through the second section to improve efficiency by not overloading the first section.
Regarding claim 8, Hutzler et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hutzler et al as modified does not specify
[claim 8] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the number of second control electrodes per unit area in the second section is greater than the number of second control electrodes per unit area in the first section.
However, according to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The only difference between the prior art and the current disclosure is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device with such relative dimensions not being not differentiating it from the performance of the device in the prior art. Additionally, such changes in size and shape, though it may be disclosed that the shape is the same, are always present since no two dimensions are exactly the same given enough precision (i.e. if we measured to the femtometer they’d be different). Thus, relative sizes and shapes can be a measure of manufacturing differences from one machine to another and do not determine the uniqueness of the invention in the present case since the device functions the same as if the dimensions would be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of the channel regions to be different in different sections to optimize performance for the specific usage of the device.
Regarding claims 9-11, 14-15 Hutzler et al further teaches
[claim 9] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the total area of the second section amounts to at least 20% of the total area of the active region (figure 2 below, where the total area of the second section is at least 20% of the entire active region [regions 1 and 2 added together, where the section is just under 50% of the entire active region).
[claim 10] The power semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the total area of the first section amounts to at least 30% of a remaining total area of the active region not occupied by the second section (figure 2 below, where the total area of the second section is at least 30% of the entire active region [regions 1 and 2 added together, where the section is just under 50% of the entire active region).
[claim 11] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the second section surrounds the first section (figure 2 below, where the second section surrounds the first section).
[claim 14] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, further comprising a plurality of source trenches in the first section, each source trench comprising a source electrode electrically connected to the first load terminal (paragraph 0011, where the source ‘zone’ is the source trench, and present in the entire active area, which includes the first section and is electrically connected to the load terminal).
[claim 15] wherein an average number of source trenches arranged between adjacent semiconductor channel structures in the first section is greater than an average number of source trenches arranged between adjacent semiconductor channel structures in the second section (paragraph 11, figure 2 below shows that the first section has 18 terminals and section 2 has 17 terminals, thus the first section has more source trenches in total than the second section as there is one source terminal [zone] between each terminal [element 1015/120] that is shown in figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: From Figure 2 Hutzler et al (US 20190165160)
PNG
media_image2.png
416
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Taken from Figure 1 of Hutzler et al. Where section 1 and 2 are both contained inside the box with diagonals lines and outlined with disconnected lines. Section 2 surrounds section 1, section 2 has 17 channels, and section 1 has 18 channels. The sections with first and second electrodes are also designated within each active area and shown by connected boxes.
Regarding claim 12, Hutzler et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 6, additionally Hutzler et al additionally teaches
[claim 12] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, further comprising a barrier region arranged between the semiconductor channel structures and a drift region of the power semiconductor device, wherein the barrier region is of a same conductivity type as the drift region (paragraph 0077, figure 5, where the trench structure [element 150] is a barrier region between the channel structure [element 112] and drift region [element 111]).
However, Hutzler et al as modified does not specify
[claim 12] and wherein an average dopant concentration of the barrier region in the first section is greater than an average dopant concentration of the barrier region in the second section.
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
B. There Must Be an Articulated Rationale Supporting the Rejection
In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359,1361,121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious.’"); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[R]eferences to ‘common sense’ … cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support … .").
The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
In particular, it states that if there is a “design need” or “market demand” and such there are a finite number of solutions to obtain this need, then it would be obvious to try. In the present case, the dopant concentrations can be one of three finite values, the first being greater than the second, the two being equal, and the second being greater than the first. Thus, with a finite number of cases, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al to change the dopant concentrations to the necessary values of finite possibilities to make the device function for the specific design need or market demand.
Regarding claim 13, Hutzler et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hutzler et al as modified does not specify
[claim 13] The power semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein an average distance between a respective one of the first control electrodes and a respective one of the second control electrodes in the first section is greater than a corresponding average distance in the second section.
However, according to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The only difference between the prior art and the current disclosure is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device with such relative dimensions not being not differentiating it from the performance of the device in the prior art. In particular, this is the difference in dimension of first control electrode to second control electrode in the first section being greater than the relative distance in the second section. Additionally, such changes in size and shape, though it may be disclosed that the shape is the same, are always present since no two dimensions are exactly the same given enough precision (i.e. if we measured to the femtometer they’d be different). Thus, relative sizes and shapes can be a measure of manufacturing differences from one machine to another and do not determine the uniqueness of the invention in the present case since the device functions the same as if the dimensions would be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of the channel regions to be different in different sections to optimize performance for the specific usage of the device.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Hutzler et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 16, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 17], wherein: the second section exhibits a second characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of a voltage of the first control signal, the second characteristic transfer curve being changeable based on the voltage of the second control signal; for a given voltage of the first control signal corresponding to a forward-conduction- state of the power semiconductor device, the resulting load current, according to the second characteristic transfer curve, has a first value for the second control signal having the same value as the first control signal and a second value for the second control signal having a value corresponding to the additive inverse of the first control signal; and the second value of the resulting load current is at most half of the first value of the resulting load current.
[claim 18] wherein the second section exhibits a second characteristic transfer curve, load current in dependence of a voltage of the first control signal, the second characteristic transfer curves being changeable based on the voltage of the second control signal.
However, according to MPEP 2112.02 2112.02 Process Claims [R-01.2024]
II. PROCESS OF USE CLAIMS — NEW AND NONOBVIOUS USES OF OLD STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITIONS MAY BE PATENTABLE
The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds, as well as a method of using them for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the inventors had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. The court went on to reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 which recited a process of using a new compound. The court relied on evidence showing that the nonaddictive property of the new compound was unexpected.). See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) (The claim was directed to a process of inhibiting light degradation of polypropylene by mixing it with one of a genus of compounds, including nickel dithiocarbamate. A reference taught mixing polypropylene with nickel dithiocarbamate to lower heat degradation. The court held that the claims read on the obvious process of mixing polypropylene with the nickel dithiocarbamate and that the preamble of the claim was merely directed to the result of mixing the two materials. "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
In particular in the present case, a device claim is examined upon the structure of the device and not how it could operate. Claim 17 recites operational language such as “exhibits” a specific characteristic with no relation to a unique structural component. Thus, determining how the device operates would be a process of use claim and not a device claim. The prior art recited, as designated in the rejection of claim 16, has the same structure as the parent claim, claim 16, and could operate in the way as described in claim 17 given the correct signals. This would be akin to discovering a new property of an already established material. Discovery of a new property is not a unique invention of a given, established, structural material. The same is true in the present case, the structure has been established as unpatentable, thus a new use of the established structure is not unique and thus can be deemed unpatentable by the same structure as described in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claims 19-23, Hutzler et al further discloses,
[claim 19] wherein the first control electrodes are electrically isolated from the second control electrodes (paragraph 0053, figure 2, and figures 1 and 2 above, element 122 is the control electrode, and according to figures 1 and 2 above the control of electrodes in each section are individual, and thus isolated form each other. Thus, the control electrodes in the first section and the second section are insulated from each other).
[claim 20] The power semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein: the first control electrodes are arranged in first control trenches and insulated from the semiconductor body by a first trench insulator (paragraph 0044, figure 2, and figures 1 and 2 above, where the first control electrodes [elements 122 in first and second section as designated above] are insulated from the body via the trench insulator [element 126]).
the second control electrodes are arranged in second control trenches and insulated from the semiconductor body by a second trench insulator (paragraph 0044, and figures 1 and 2 above, where the second control electrodes [elements 122 in first and second section as designated above] are insulated from the body via the trench insulator [element 126]).
and the semiconductor channel structures are arranged in mesas of the semiconductor body, the mesas being laterally confined at least by the control trenches (figure 2, paragraph 0037, element 112 is the channel section and alighted in mesas [as best shown in paragraph 0051 and figure 2 with the mesa contact plugs [element 1011] separating the channel portions as mesas).
[claim 21] The power semiconductor device of claim 20, wherein in the second section, at least some of the mesas are laterally confined by one of the first control trenches and by one of the second control trenches (paragraph 0044, figure 2 and figures 1 and 2 above, where each mesa [element 112 separated by contact mesa plugs [elements 1011] as detailed in paragraph 0051] is separated from the other mesas and laterally confined [as shown in figure 2 by elements 112 being insulated from each other by the trench insulators [element 126]], thus this is the case in the second section [as shown in figures 1 and 2 above] with the first and second control trenches [where each control trench is associated with the first and second control electrodes in their respective areas]).
[claim 22] The power semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein at least some of the semiconductor channel structures comprise a respective source region of a first conductivity type electrically connected to the first load terminal, and wherein in the second section, the source regions are arranged adjacent to the first control electrodes and spatially displaced from the second control electrodes (paragraph 0050, figure 2 and figures 1 and 2 above where element 113 is the source region of the semiconductor channel with first conductivity type and electrically connected to the first load terminal [element 101], wherein in the second section [as shown in figures 1 and 2 above] the source regions are adjacent to the first control electrodes [element 122 in said section] and also spatially displaced from the second control electrode. As one can see in figure 2 of Hutzler et al, element 113 is both physically displaces from each control electrode and also adjacent to control electrodes, thus it they are also adjacent to the first control electrodes and physically displaced from the second control electrodes).
[claim 23] The power semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein the semiconductor body is formed in a single semiconductor chip (paragraph 0001, where the power semiconductor device is a single semiconductor device and thus a single semiconductor chip).
Regarding claim 24, Hutzler et al as modified above teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 17, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 24] The power semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein the active region further comprises a third section including a subset of the second control electrodes, the third section constituting a diode section such that the power semiconductor device exhibits an RC IGBT configuration.
However, a new embodiment of Hutzler et al as modified does disclose
[claim 24] The power semiconductor device of claim 17, wherein the active region further comprises a third section including a subset of the second control electrodes (figure 3 below, where the third active area contains control electrodes [element 122 of figure 2 in Hutzler et al] which are assigned to be second control electrodes)
PNG
media_image3.png
416
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Hutzler et al
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified above to incorporate the new embodiment of Hutzler et al in order to allow specific use case of the same structure for design need or market demand.
Additionally, Hutzler et al as modified above does not specifically disclose
[claim 24] the third section constituting a diode section such that the power semiconductor device exhibits an RC IGBT configuration
However, according to to MPEP 2112.02 2112.02 Process Claims [R-01.2024]
II. PROCESS OF USE CLAIMS — NEW AND NONOBVIOUS USES OF OLD STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITIONS MAY BE PATENTABLE
The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds, as well as a method of using them for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the inventors had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. The court went on to reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 which recited a process of using a new compound. The court relied on evidence showing that the nonaddictive property of the new compound was unexpected.). See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) (The claim was directed to a process of inhibiting light degradation of polypropylene by mixing it with one of a genus of compounds, including nickel dithiocarbamate. A reference taught mixing polypropylene with nickel dithiocarbamate to lower heat degradation. The court held that the claims read on the obvious process of mixing polypropylene with the nickel dithiocarbamate and that the preamble of the claim was merely directed to the result of mixing the two materials. "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
In particular in the present case, a device claim is examined upon the structure of the device and not how it could operate. Claim 24 recites operational language such as “exhibits” a specific characteristic with no relation to a unique structural component. Thus, determining how the device operates would be a process of use claim and not a device claim. The prior art recited, as designated in the rejection of claim 17 and other limitations in combination in claim 23 could operate in the way as described in claim 17 given the correct signals. This would be akin to discovering a new property of an already established material. Discovery of a new property is not a unique invention of a given, established, structural material. The same is true in the present case, the structure has been established as unpatentable, thus a new use of the established structure is not unique and thus can be deemed unpatentable by the same structure as described in the rejection of claim 17 and claim 24 in combination with limitations thereof.
Regarding claim 27, Hutlzer et al as modified above does not specifically disclose,
[claim 27] A method of operating a half bridge circuit comprising a first power semiconductor device according to claim 24 and a second power semiconductor device according to claim 24, comprising: providing a first control signal to the plurality of first control electrodes of the first power semiconductor device and a second control signal to the plurality of the second control electrodes of the first power semiconductor device; and providing a further first control signal to the plurality of first control electrodes of the second power semiconductor device and a further second control signal to the plurality of the second control electrodes of the second power semiconductor device.
However, according to 2112.02 Process Claims [R-01.2024]
II. PROCESS OF USE CLAIMS — NEW AND NONOBVIOUS USES OF OLD STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITIONS MAY BE PATENTABLE
The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds, as well as a method of using them for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the inventors had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. The court went on to reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 which recited a process of using a new compound. The court relied on evidence showing that the nonaddictive property of the new compound was unexpected.). See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) (The claim was directed to a process of inhibiting light degradation of polypropylene by mixing it with one of a genus of compounds, including nickel dithiocarbamate. A reference taught mixing polypropylene with nickel dithiocarbamate to lower heat degradation. The court held that the claims read on the obvious process of mixing polypropylene with the nickel dithiocarbamate and that the preamble of the claim was merely directed to the result of mixing the two materials. "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
The method of operation in claim 27 contains no specific new structural device that makes the operation unique. Claim 27 recites a new use of an established structure as shown in parent claim, claim 24. Thus according to MPEP 2112.02 the new usage of an established material or structure is not obvious if there is no unique structure perform such operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified above to operate the device in a specific manner to satisfy either a design need or market demand for a specific use case of the same structural device that has been deemed unpatentable.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1).
Hutzler et al teaches
[claim 5] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a first section and a second section, both configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 above show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 above);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in both the first section and the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in both the first section and the second section; and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in both the first section and the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 above where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 above in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 above. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 above. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 above, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal),
the respective at least one of the first control electrodes being configured to induce an inversion channel for load current conduction in the associated semiconductor channel structure (paragraph 0011),
However, Hutzler et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 5] wherein in the first section, a first average effective distance between the channel structures controlled by the first control electrodes and the second control electrodes is greater than a corresponding second average effective distance in the second section.
However, according to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The only difference between the prior art and the current disclosure is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device with such relative dimensions not being not differentiating it from the performance of the device in the prior art. Additionally, such changes in size and shape, though it may be disclosed that the shape is the same, are always present since no two dimensions are exactly the same given enough precision (i.e. if we measured to the femtometer they’d be different). Thus, relative sizes and shapes can be a measure of manufacturing differences from one machine to another and do not determine the uniqueness of the invention in the present case since the device functions the same as if the dimensions would be the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of the channel regions to be different in different sections to optimize performance.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1) and Mauder et al (US 10141404 B2) in further view of Hikasa (US 20200287044 A1).
Hutzler et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 4] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a rate of change of the first characteristic output curve is positive irrespective of the voltage of the second control signal, and wherein a rate of change of second characteristic output curve is positive or negative depending on the voltage of the second control signal.
However, Hikasa does teach
[claim 4] The power semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a rate of change of the first characteristic output curve is positive irrespective of the voltage of the second control signal, and wherein a rate of change of second characteristic output curve is positive or negative depending on the voltage of the second control signal (paragraph 0135, figure 8 where L1 and L2 refer to the characteristic oupput curve of the first and second control signal respectively. L2 is positive regardless of the voltage of the second characteristic voltage [as shown by L2] and L2 is also positive in its slope as voltage increases in the second control signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Hikasa in order to further control the current through the semiconductor device in such a manner that the current will ramp up regardless of the second control signal to improve reliability.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1) in view of Laven et al (US 20160190123).
Hutzler et al teaches
[claim 26] A power semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body coupled to a first load terminal and a second load terminal (figure 2, paragraph 0035, where element 101 is the first load terminal and element 102 is the second load terminal);
an active region with a second section configured to conduct a load current between the first load terminal and the second load terminal (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0039, additionally figures 1 and 2 below show the designation of the two sections of the active area, element 110 of figure 1, where each can conduct a load from the first terminal [element 101] to the second terminal [element 102]. There are 5 rows of the two active areas shown in figure 1 below, as designated by figure 2 below);
electrically isolated from the first load terminal and the second load terminal, a plurality of first control electrodes in the second section, and a plurality of second control electrodes in the second section, wherein the first control electrodes are arranged in first control trenches and insulated from the semiconductor body by a first trench insulator and configured to be subjected to a first control signal, and the second control electrodes are arranged in second control trenches and insulated from the semiconductor body by a second trench insulator and configured to be subjected to a second control signal (paragraphs 0053-0054, figure 2, additionally figures 1 and 2 below where the first plurality of control electrodes is element 122 as shown in figure 1 below in the first row of both the first active area and second area in figure 2 below. Specifically, the first row is the bottom most row of figure 2 below. The second plurality of control electrodes are elements 122 in both the first and second active area but situated in the second row [row above the first row] as designated in figure 2 below, where each set of control electrodes are set to a first control signal and second control signal. Where in element 121 in each section is a trench insulator. Thus the first control electrodes are isolated from the body via element 121 in said first section and the second control electrodes are isolated from the body via element 121 in said second section);
and a plurality of semiconductor channel structures in the semiconductor body extending in the second section, each of the plurality of channel structures being associated to at least one of the first control electrodes, wherein each of the semiconductor channel structures comprises a source region of a first conductivity type and a body region of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type, the body region separating the source region from a drift region of the first conductivity type, wherein the respective at least one of the first control electrodes is configured to induce an inversion channel within the body region of the associated channel structure contributing to the load current (paragraph 0011, figures 1 and 2, where element 112 is the channel zone and each channel zone is associated with a control electrode [element 122]. Where the first set of control electrodes, designated by elements 122 in figures 1 and 2 below in the first row of both the first and second active area as shown in figure 2 below, such that the channel structure extends both in the x-direction [as shown in figure 2 of Hutzler et al] as well as the y-direction [as designated by figure 1 of Hutzler et al], and the they create an inversion channel as described in paragraph 0011. Where each channel structure comprises a source region of first conductivity type, the body [labeled “a section of a channel zone of second conductivity type” in paragraph 0011] of second conductivity type, and a drift region of first conductivity type),
wherein the semiconductor channel structures are arranged in mesas of the semiconductor body, the mesas being laterally confined at least by the control trenches, wherein in the second section, at least some of the mesas comprising channel structures are laterally confined by one of the first control trenches and by one of the second control trenches (paragraph 0051, where the mesa contact plugs [element 1011] are instituted to confine the channel region into mesas that are laterally confined by the control trenches [element 121] and the mesa contact plugs. Thus, in each section [i.e. the first section and the second section] the channel region is confined into mesas by the control electrode of the respective region [element 122] and the mesa contact plugs of each region [element 1011]).
However, Hutzler et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 26] wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section.
However, Laven et al does teach
[claim 26] wherein the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels within the second section and a reduced influence on inversion channels within a first section of the active region that is spatially distinct from the second section (paragraph 0072, figure 2A, where C1 is the first control signal and C2 is the second control signal, where element 150 is in place of the first active region, and element 160 is in place of the second active region, where the second control signal has an influence on inversion channels of the second section [element 160] and has a reduced influence on the inversion channels of the first section [element 150] when compared to the influence it has on its own section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Laven et al in order to provide more control to the power semiconductor device, thus giving greater precision in controlling the device.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1), and Laven et al (US 20160190123) and in further view of Gejo et al (US 20210134791).
Hutzler et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 26, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 28] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein each of the first control electrodes is electrically connected to at least one first control terminal, wherein each of the second control electrodes is electrically connected to at least one second control terminal, and wherein each of the at least one first control terminal is electrically isolated from each of the at least one second control terminal.
However, Gejo et al does teach
[claim 28] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein each of the first control electrodes is electrically connected to at least one first control terminal, wherein each of the second control electrodes is electrically connected to at least one second control terminal, and wherein each of the at least one first control terminal is electrically isolated from each of the at least one second control terminal (paragraph 0062-0063, figure 5, where the first control electrodes are attached to the first control terminal, element MT, and the second control electrode is attached to the second control terminal, ST, where MT and St are electrically isolated [as best seen by figure 5 where the terminals do not connect to each other]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Gejo et al in order to isolate the control terminals electrically to provide the best control of the device by minimizing any parasitic effects from one terminal to another.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1), and Laven et al (US 20160190123) and in further view of Fulcheri (US 20160336132).
Hutzler et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 26, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 29] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein the second control electrodes are coupled to the first control electrodes via an RC-structure having defined ohmic and capacitive characteristics, such that the second control signal is derived from the first control signal.
However, Fulcheri does teach
[claim 29] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein the second control electrodes are coupled to the first control electrodes via an RC-structure having defined ohmic and capacitive characteristics, such that the second control signal is derived from the first control signal (claim 25, where the first and second terminals are capacitvely coupled [RC structure] and have a characteristic capacitance [intrinsic to coupling], where the second control signal is a derivative of the first [specifically the second control terminal has a current flow from the first control terminal, thus being derivative]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Fulcheri in order to allow for greater control of the device at high powers through an RC structure to allow the use of low cost components for high power control devices [paragraph 0016].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutzler et al (US 20190165160 A1), and Laven et al (US 20160190123) and in further view of Kakimoto (US 20180308757)
Hutzler et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 26, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 30] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein the second control signal is a delayed version of the first control signal.
However, Kakimoto does teach
[claim 30] The power semiconductor device of claim 26, wherein the second control signal is a delayed version of the first control signal (figure 5, where the first device is in reference to the first active area and thus the first control signal, and the second device is in reference to the second active area and thus is the second control signal, where the signal to the first gate in the second device is a delayed version of the signal to the first gate in the first device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Hutzler et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Kakimoto in order to minimize the amount of unique signals sent to the devices by delaying the signal, thus making the device more efficient.
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 ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM 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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights