DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 11/13/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejection over Ono et al., US 2010/0044100
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2010/0044100, in view of Kato et al., US 6,826,053.
Regarding claim 1, Ono (see marked up figures 1 & 2 below) teaches a module comprising:
a substrate 11 having an upper main surface 5 and a lower main surface arranged in an up-down direction;
a metal member 21//22/23 made of a single metal (paragraph 0071) plate (figure 2 shows the frame body 15 it is a single plate) including a plate-shaped portion 22 provided on the upper main surface 5 of the substrate 11, the plate-shaped portion 22 having a front main surface 3 and a back main surface 4 arranged in a front-back direction when viewed in the up-down direction;
a first electronic component 1 mounted on the upper main surface 5 of the substrate 11 and disposed in front of the metal member 22;
a second electronic component 2 mounted on the upper main surface 5 of the substrate 11 and disposed behind the metal member 22; and
a sealing resin layer 18 provided on the upper main surface 5 of the substrate 11 and covering the metal member 22, the first electronic component 1, and the second electronic component 2, wherein
when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting an upper end of the plate-shaped portion 22 in a left-right direction is defined as an upper side,
when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting a lower end of the plate-shaped portion 22 in the left-right direction is defined as a lower side,
the plate-shaped portion 22 is provided with one or more upper notches 24 extending downward from the upper side, and
the metal member 22 further includes one or more foot portions 6 extending forward or backward from the lower side.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to
PNG
media_image2.png
344
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ono fails to teach the metal member further includes a portion located at a boundary between the plate-shaped portion and the one or more foot portions, and bent in an arc shape.
Kato (see marked up figure 3 below) teaches the metal member 15 further includes a portion located at a boundary between the plate-shaped portion and the one or more foot portions 15, and bent in an arc shape 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
652
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the arc shape of Kato in the invention of Ono because arc shapes are structurally stronger than non-arced shapes, so they are less likely to break or deform.
As to claim 7, Ono (figures 1 & 2) teaches a shield 17 electrically connected to the metal member 22 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 18.
In re claim 20, Ono (figures 1 & 2) teaches a shield 17 electrically connected to the metal member 22 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 18.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2010/0044100, in view of Kato et al., US 6,826,053, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster, US 7,629,674.
Concerning claim 2, Ono fails to teach the one or more foot portions include a second foot portion disposed at a left end portion or a right end portion of the lower side when viewed in the front-back direction.
Foster (figure 1), when combined with Ono, teaches the one or more foot portions 152 include a second foot portion 152 disposed at a left end portion or a right end portion of the lower side when viewed in the front-back direction. Modifying the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion 6 of Ono on the bottom, would result in Ono’s plate-shaped portion 22 having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portion 6 of Ono.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the second foot portion of Foster in the invention of Ono because Foster teaches the upper notches 172 associated with the portions 152 allow the molding compound to pass through during molding (abstract). This would improve adhesion of the plate-shaped portion.
Pertaining to claim 3, Foster (figure 1), when combined with Ono, teaches the one or more foot portions 6 include a plurality of foot portions (152 of Foster), and the plurality of foot portions 6 extend forward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion, or the plurality of foot portions extend backward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion 22. Modifying the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion 6 of Ono on the bottom, would result in Ono’s plate-shaped portion 22 having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portion 6 of Ono.
In claim 4, Foster (figure 1), when applied to the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono, teaches the plurality of foot portions 152 are arranged at equal intervals in the left-right direction when viewed in the front-back direction. Modifying the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion 6 of Ono on the bottom, would result in Ono’s plate-shaped portion 22 having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portion 6 of Ono.
Regarding claim 8, Foster (figure 1), when applied to the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono, teaches the one or more foot portions 6 include a plurality of foot portions (152 of Foster), and the plurality of foot portions extend forward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion 22, or the plurality of foot portions 152 extend backward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion 22. Modifying the plate-shaped portion 22 of Ono to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion 6 of Ono onthe bottom, would result in Ono’s plate-shaped portion 22 having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portion 6 of Ono.
With respect to claim 16, Ono (figure 1) teaches a shield 17 electrically connected to the metal member 22 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 18.
As to claim 17, Ono (figure 1) teaches a shield 17 electrically connected to the metal member 22 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 18.
In re claim 18, Ono (figure 1) teaches a shield 17 electrically connected to the metal member 22 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 18.
Claim(s) 6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al., US 2010/0044100, in view of Kato et al., US 6,826,053, as applied to claim 1 above, or Ono et al., US 2010/0044100, and further in view of Foster, US 7,629,674, as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Oh et al., US 2007/0246825.
With respect to claims 6 and 12-14, Ono fails to teach a left end of the plate- shaped portion is located on a left surface of the sealing resin layer, a right end of the plate-shaped portion is located on a right surface of the sealing resin layer, and the upper end of the plate-shaped portion is located on an upper surface of the sealing resin layer.
Oh (figure 2a) teaches a left end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on a left surface of the sealing resin layer 24, a right end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located ona right surface of the sealing resin layer 24, and the upper end of the plate- shaped portion 26 is located on an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the structure of Oh in the invention of Ono because Oh teaches a known equivalent structure that would reduce overall size of the module by reducing the area of sealing resin layer. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Rejection over Oh et al., US 2007/0246825
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al., US 2007/0246825, in view of Kato et al., US 6,826,053.
As to claim 1, Oh (see marked up figure 2a below) teaches a module comprising:
a substrate 21 having an upper main surface and a lower main surface arranged in an up-down direction;
a metal member 26 made of a single metal plate (paragraph 0038 states 26 is a metal wall) including a plate-shaped portion 26 provided on the upper main surface of the substrate 21, the plate-shaped portion 26 having a front main surface 26a and a back main surface 26b arranged in a front-back direction when viewed in the up-down direction;
a first electronic component 22a mounted on the upper main surface of the substrate 21 and disposed in front of the metal member 26;
a second electronic component 22 mounted on the upper main surface of the substrate 21 and disposed behind the metal member 26; and
a sealing resin layer 24 provided on the upper main surface of the substrate 21 and covering the metal member 26, the first electronic component 22a, and the second electronic component 22, wherein
when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting an upper end of the plate-shaped portion 26 in a left-right direction is defined as an upper side (top of 26),
when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting a lower end of the plate- shaped portion 26 in the left-right direction is defined as a lower side (bottom of 26),
the plate-shaped portion 26 is provided with one or more upper notches 1 extending downward from the upper side.
PNG
media_image4.png
420
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Oh fails to teach the metal member 26 further includes one or more foot portions extending forward or backward from the lower side; and the metal member further includes a portion located at a boundary between the plate-shaped portion and the one or more foot portions, and bent in an arc shape.
Kato (see marked up figure 3 below) teaches the metal member 15 includes one or more foot portions 3 extending forward or backward from the lower side; and the metal member 15 further includes a portion located at a boundary between the plate-shaped portion and the one or more foot portions 15, and bent in an arc shape 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the foot portion and the arc shape of Kato in the invention of Ono because (1) foot portions increase the surface area therefore strengthening the bond, and (2) arc shapes are structurally stronger than non-arced shapes, so they are less likely to break or deform.
PNG
media_image5.png
652
794
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In re claim 6, Oh (figure 2a) teaches a left end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on a left surface of the sealing resin layer 24, a right end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on a right surface of the sealing resin layer 24, and the upper end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 24.
Concerning claim 7, Oh (figure 2a) teaches a shield 25 electrically connected to the metal member 26 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 24.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al., US 2007/0246825, in view of Kato et al., US 6,826,053, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Foster, US 7,629,674.
Pertaining to claim 2, Lee or Fujiwara fail to teach the one or more foot portions include a second foot portion disposed at a left end portion or a right end portion of the lower side when viewed in the front-back direction.
Foster (figure 1), when combined with Lee or Fujiwara, teaches the one or more foot portions 152 include a second foot portion 152 disposed at a left end portion or a right end portion of the lower side when viewed in the front-back direction. Modifying the plate-shaped portion 26 of Oh to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion of Lee or Fujiwara on the bottom, would result in Oh’s plate-shaped portion having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portion 6 of Lee or Fujiwara.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the second foot portion of Foster in the invention of Lee or Fujiwara because Foster teaches the upper notches 172 associated with the portions 152 allow the molding compound to pass through during molding (abstract). This would improve adhesion of the plate-shaped portion.
In claim 3, Lee or Fujiwara fail to teach the one or more foot portions include a plurality of foot portions, and the plurality of foot portions extend forward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion, or the plurality of foot portions extend backward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion.
Foster (figure 1), when combined with Oh, teaches the one or more foot portions 6 include a plurality of foot portions (152 of Foster), and the plurality of foot portions 6 extend forward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion, or the plurality of foot portions extend backward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion 22. Modifying the plate-shaped portion of Lee or Fujiwara to include the posts 152 of Foster, but keeping the foot portion of Lee or Fujiwara on the bottom, would result in Oh’s plate-shaped portion having posts 152 of Foster with the foot portions of Lee or Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 4, Foster (figure 1) teaches the plurality of foot portions of Lee or Fujiwara modified with the multiple portions 152 of Foster are arranged at equal intervals in the left-right direction when viewed in the front-back direction.
With respect to claim 8, Lee or Fujiwara and Foster teach the foot portion of Lee or Fujiwara modified by the multiple post of Foster teach the one or more foot portions include a plurality of foot portions (152 of Foster having the foot portions of Lee or Fujiwara), and the plurality of foot portions extend forward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion, or the plurality of foot portions extend backward from the lower side of the plate-shaped portion.
As to claims 12 -14, Oh (figure 1) teaches a left end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on a left surface of the sealing resin layer 24, a right end of the plate- shaped portion 26 is located on a right surface of the sealing resin layer 24, and the upper end of the plate-shaped portion 26 is located on an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 24.
In re claims 16-20, Oh (figure 2a) teaches a shield 25 electrically connected to the metal member 26 and covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer 24.
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 DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 11/22/25