Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/144,681

POWER MODULE FOR VEHICLE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 08, 2023
Examiner
FARMER, EMILY NICOLE
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
27 granted / 29 resolved
+25.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
53
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 29 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Response to Arguments/Amendments Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026, regarding amended independent claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the arguments regarding the inclusion of claim limitations of claim 3 and cancelled claim 5 into claim 1, are not persuasive, and the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) of 10/16/2025 is upheld. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “including a positive electrode and a negative electrode disposed to face each other in a predetermined direction with a predetermined gap therebetween,” and that the cited prior art of Hable (US PGPub 2018/0122720) teaches where the positive and negative electrodes are disposed to face a dielectric foil between. However, Hable teaches wherein the positive and negative electrodes are disposed to face each other in a predetermined direction with a predetermined gap therebetween, a portion of which is filled with a dielectric material, and another portion of which is an air gap. Examiner notes that the claims as written do not require wherein the entire opposing faces of the electrodes contain an air gap in between, and additionally, that as claimed, the limitation ”gap” could be interpreted as an air gap, or conductive gap, which is provided by a dielectric material. The rejections of dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10 are maintained, accordingly. Claim 11, previously indicated as allowable subject matter, remains objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim, and would be allowable if written in independent form to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A phone call was made to attorney Byung Cheol Kwak on 02/18/2026 to determine if applicant wanted to amend previously indicated allowable subject matter into the independent claim. Applicant opted not to amend. 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hable et al. (US PGPub 2018/0122720; herein known as Hable). Regarding claim 1, Hable teaches (annotated Fig. 1 below) a power module for a vehicle, the power module comprising: a lower substrate (104, [0067]) and an upper substrate (106, [0069]) spaced from the lower substrate; a semiconductor chip (102, [0066]) disposed between the lower substrate and the upper substrate; a first power lead (164, 162, [0073]) disposed being spaced from the semiconductor chip and connected to one of the lower substrate and the upper substrate (upper substrate, 111, [0078]); and a second power lead (160, [0073]) disposed being spaced from the semiconductor chip and connected to a remaining one of the lower substrate and the upper substrate (lower substrate, [0070]), wherein the first power lead includes a positive electrode (164, [0081]) and a negative electrode (162, [0081]), and wherein the positive electrode (164, [0081]) and the negative electrode (162, [0081]) are disposed to face each other in a predetermined direction with a predetermined gap therebetween (d, [0073]). PNG media_image1.png 256 567 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Hable teaches (annotated Fig. 1 above) the power module of claim wherein the first power lead (164, 162, [0073]) and the second power lead (160, [0073]) are disposed at opposite sides (S1, S2) to each other with the semiconductor chip (102, [0066]) between the first power lead and the second power lead on a plane (P1). Regarding claim 3, Hable teaches (Fig. 1) the power module of claim 1, wherein the second power lead (160, [0073]) includes an output electrode ([0073]). Regarding claim 4, Hable teaches (Fig. 1) the power module of claim 3, wherein the positive electrode (164, [0081]) is connected to the one of the upper substrate (106, [0067]) and the lower substrate, and the negative electrode (162, [0081]) is connected to the remaining one of the upper substrate and the lower substrate (104, [0067]). Regarding claim 6, Hable teaches (Fig. 1) the power module of claim 4, wherein the positive electrode (164, [0081]) is connected to a metal portion (112, part of 106, [0067]) in the one of the upper substrate (106, [0067]) and the lower substrate, and the negative electrode (162, [0081]) is connected to a metal portion (112, part of 104, [0067]) in the remaining one of the upper substrate and the lower substrate (104, [0067]). 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. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hable as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US PGPub 2013/0020694), herein referred to as Liang. Regarding claim 7, Hable teaches the power module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a current flows in order of the first power lead, the semiconductor chip, and the second power lead, or in order of the second power lead, the semiconductor chip, and the first power lead. Liang teaches (Fig. 1) wherein a current flows in order of the first power lead (122, [0026]), the semiconductor chip (114, [0025]), and the second power lead (134, [0026]). Because Hable and Liang are both directed toward leadframe power modules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hable and Liang to include wherein a current flows in order of the first power lead, the semiconductor chip, and the second power lead in order to provide for high power switching capability (Liang, [0025-0026]). Regarding claim 8, Hable in view of Liang teaches (Liang, Fig. 1) wherein a high side current flows in the order of the first power lead (122, [0026]), the semiconductor chip (114, [0025]), and the second power lead (134, [0026]). Regarding claim 9, Hable in view of Liang (Liang, Fig. 1) teaches wherein a low side current flows in the order of the second power lead (134, [0026]), the semiconductor chip (114, [0025]) and the first power lead (122, [0026]). Liang specifies a power switch configuration which has capability of high or low side current direction, [0025]). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hable as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP 2015/002187, translation provided for citation), herein referred to as Yamada. Regarding claim 10, Hable teaches (Fig. 1) the power module of claim 1, wherein the second power lead (160, [0073]) has a second surface opposite to the first surface and connected to the lower substrate (104, [0067]). Hable does not explicitly teach wherein the second power lead includes a first surface connected to the upper substrate. Yamada teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the second power lead (5, [0032]) includes a first surface connected to the upper substrate (8, [0032]). Because Hable and Yamada are both directed toward leadframe power modules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hable and Yamada to include wherein the second power lead includes a first surface connected to the upper substrate in order to provide insulation between the top of the second power lead and the upper substrate, to avoid shorting (Yamada, [0032]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 11 is allowed. Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, the power module of claim 1, wherein the second power lead bifurcates at one side thereof and each bifurcated potion of the second power lead is connected to the lower substrate and the upper substrate, respectively. Yamada teaches a second power lead that is connected to both the lower and upper substrate, respectively, but does not teach wherein the lead is bifurcated at one side for the purpose of that connection. Kusukawa et al. (JP 2020/026751, US PGPub 2022/0359434 used for citation), herein referred to as Kusukawa, teaches a forked set of power leads (Fig. 1, 4, 5) but does not teach wherein these leads are a part of a single second power lead, as one of the leads is connected to a DC bus bar and power supply, and the other to an AC bus bar and respective load. Prior art references alone or in combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest every limitation of the invention as claimed. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILY N FARMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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. /EMILY FARMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604744
INTEGRATION OF GLASS CORE INTO ELECTRONIC SUBSTRATES FOR FINE PITCH DIE TILING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604571
LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH LATTICE MATCHING SIDEWALL PASSIVATION LAYER AND METHOD OF MAKING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593503
PILLAR-SHAPED SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581874
SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564019
WAFER FABRICATION PROCESS AND DEVICES WITH EXTENDED PERIPHERAL DIE AREA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 29 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month