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 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn.
Claims 8 is currently amended.
Claim 9 is original.
Claim 10 is new.
Claims 8-10 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 8, Applicant argues that:
“Takeuchi, as shown above, clearly does not have
a first wiring bar extending in an extending direction of the first sidewall, and being inscribed, in its entirety, to the resin of the first sidewall, and
a second wiring bar extending in the extending direction of the first sidewall, and being inscribed, in its entirety, to the resin of the second sidewall,
as required by amended claim 8, because the terminals 4 and 5 (the alleged second and first wiring bars) of Takeuchi respectively have the convex portions 41 and 51 that are not inscribed to the sidewalls.” Remarks, pages 8-9.
This argument is not persuasive.
Notably, as more fully detailed in the rejections below, the “convex portions 41 and 51” of the terminals 4 and 5 are not being read on the claimed first and second wiring bars. Rather, the portion C of element 5 (hereinafter “WB1”) is being read on and/or taken as the claimed first wiring bar, and the portion C of element 4 (hereinafter “WB2”) is being read on and/or taken as the claimed first wiring bar. That is to say, only the central portions C of the respective elements 5 and 4 are being read on the claimed first and second wiring bars, respectively. The convex ends and/or arms (B, 41, 51, b1-3) are not being read on or taken as part of the claimed wiring bars. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 4, the first and second wiring bars WB1 and WB2 are inscribed, in their entirety as claimed, to the resin of their respective sidewalls.
With respect to claim 9, Applicant argues that “claim 9 is deemed clearly patentable at least for its dependency on claim 8.” Remarks, page 9. This argument is not persuasive.
First, claim 8 has not been deemed patentable, and accordingly claim 9’s dependency therefrom is not dispositive. Second, the Applicant makes no argument that any particular limitation recited in claim 9 further distinguishes the claim patentably over the prior art of record, nor does Applicant specifically point out any additional error in the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant argues that:
“Support for the new claim can be found, e.g., at ¶[0088], which reads as follows.
[0088] Alternatively, the wiring bar 11d may be formed inside the resin of the sidewall 11c1 and the wiring bar 11e may be formed inside the resin of the sidewall 11c2 (see FIG. 15 illustrating a modification to be described later). This case further increases the mutual inductance and further enhances the effect of equalizing the current sharing.
Takeuchi also fails to disclose this feature, and new claim 10 is therefore patentable.” Remarks, page 9.
This argument is also not persuasive.
Notably, under the BRI, the first and second wiring bars being “embedded” as claimed in the resin of the first and second sidewalls does not require that the first and second wiring bars are completely encased in and/or entirely surrounded by the resin of the first and second sidewalls. That is to say, under the BRI, “embedded in the resin” as claimed merely requires that some portion of the wiring bar protrude or otherwise enter into the resin of the sidewall.
Applicant’s own specification as originally filed, while nowhere using the term “embedded,” merely discloses that “parts (indicated by broken lines) of the wiring bars 11d and 11e are formed inside the resin of the sidewalls 11c1 and 11c2.” Paragraph [0104]. As shown in FIG. 15 of the present application, other parts of the wiring bars 11d and 11e (e.g., the horizontal part connecting 11d to 11a and the horizontal part connecting 11e to 11b) are not indicated by broken lines, and hence, are not “formed inside” the resin of the sidewalls 11c1 and 11c2. In no embodiment does Applicant disclose the wiring bars 11d or 11e being formed entirely inside the sidewalls 11c1 or 11c2. Accordingly, the BRI of “embedded” as claimed to include cases where only a part of the wiring bar is formed inside the resin of the sidewall is consistent with Applicant’s own specification.
Note also, as shown in FIG. 5 of Takeuchi, the wiring bars (5, 4) each include “a projection D which engages with the housing 6.” Column 3, line 68 – column 4, line 1 (emphasis added). Additionally, FIG. 4 shows that the respective portions (C) including the projections (D) of the wiring bars (5, 4) are otherwise flush with the respective upper and lower sidewalls. Accordingly, the respective projection (D) of each of the first and second wiring bars (5, 4) necessarily extends into the respective upper and lower sidewalls of the housing (6), and hence, the first and second wiring bars (5, 4) are embedded (i.e., at least partially) in the resin of the first and second sidewalls as claimed, i.e., at least insomuch as the projections (D) of the wiring bars (5, 4) must extend into the resin of the first and second sidewall in order to “engage” with the housing (6) as explicitly taught.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi (US 4635026 A).
[AltContent: textbox (H)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
404
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 4 OF TAKEUCHI
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 5 and annotated FIG. 4 herein):
A semiconductor module (see FIG. 4), comprising:
a housing (6) formed of a resin (column 6, lines 17-19), the housing (6) including a first sidewall (upper sidewall), a second sidewall (lower sidewall) facing the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and a third sidewall (right sidewall) connecting an end (right end) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall) and an end (right end) of the second sidewall (lower sidewall),
a first wiring bar (i.e., the portion C of element 5 – hereinafter “WB1”) extending in an extending direction (horizontally) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and being inscribed, in its entirety, to the resin of the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and
a second wiring bar (i.e., the portion C of element 4 – hereinafter “WB2”) extending in the extending direction (horizontally) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and being inscribed, in its entirety, to the resin of the second sidewall (lower sidewall),
wherein the first wiring bar (WB1) and the second wiring bar (WB2) are electrically connected (e.g., via the tongues A of the respective wiring bars WB1 and WB2) to an outside (exterior) of the housing (6) from the resin of the third sidewall (right sidewall).
Note, Applicant’s specification explicitly recites that the state of being “inscribed” means that a wiring bar contacts the resin of the sidewall from the inside of the housing. See, e.g., paragraph [0086]. Accordingly, insomuch Takeuchi discloses that the first wiring bar (WB1) contacts the resin of the first sidewall (upper sidewall) from the inside of the housing (6), the first wiring bar (WB1) is “inscribed” to the resin of the first sidewall (upper sidewall) as claimed. Likewise, insomuch Takeuchi discloses that the second wiring bar (WB2) contacts the resin of the second sidewall (lower sidewall) from the inside of the housing (6), the second wiring bar (WB2) is “inscribed” to the resin of the second sidewall (lower sidewall) as claimed.
Note also, only the central portions C of the respective elements 5 and 4 are being read on the claimed first and second wiring bars, respectively. That is to say, the convex ends and/or arms (B, 41, 51, b1-3) are not being read on or taken as part of the claimed wiring bars. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 4, the first and second wiring bars WB1 and WB2 are inscribed, in their entirety as claimed, to the resin of their respective sidewalls.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi, as evidenced by NPL1 ("Hollow." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hollow. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the semiconductor module (see FIG. 4) according to claim 8.
Takeuchi further discloses wherein the housing (6) has a hollow (H) formed therein, adjacent to the third sidewall (right sidewall) of the housing (6), and extending to the first sidewall (upper sidewall) through the resin between the first wiring bar (WB1) and the second wiring bar (WB2).
Note, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a “hollow” is an unfilled space or a depressed or low part of a surface. As evidence, see, e.g., NPL1, page 2, defining the noun “hollow.” Accordingly, the region (H) reads on a hollow as claimed insomuch as the region (H) is an unfilled space and/or depression which extends vertically through the resin of the third sidewall (right sidewall). That is to say, the hollow (H) defines a depression and/or an unfilled space in the resin of the right sidewall, e.g., as compared to at the protruding part (61) of the right sidewall, the resin of the right sidewall corresponding to the location of the hollow (H) is depressed or thinned leaving an unfilled space. The hollow (H) also extends to the first sidewall (upper sidewall). See, e.g., annotated FIG. 4 herein. To the extent that the hollow (H) extends vertically between the protruding part (61) and the upper sidewall, the hollow (H) extends through the resin. Additionally, the hollow (H) extends through the resin at a location between the first wiring bar (WB1) and the second wiring bar (WB2). In short, under the BRI, a hollow extending to the first sidewall through the resin between the first wiring bar and the second wiring bar is being read as an unfilled space or depression in the resin forming the housing, wherein the unfilled space or depression reaches (i.e., extends to) the first sidewall and is located between the first and second wiring bars. The indicated hollow (H) satisfies such a reading.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 5 and annotated FIG. 4 herein):
A semiconductor module (see FIG. 4), comprising:
a housing (6) formed of a resin (column 6, lines 17-19), the housing (6) including a first sidewall (upper sidewall), a second sidewall (lower sidewall) facing the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and a third sidewall (right sidewall) connecting an end (right end) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall) and an end (right end) of the second sidewall (lower sidewall),
a first wiring bar (5) embedded in the resin of the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and extending in an extending direction (horizontally) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall), and
a second wiring bar (4) embedded in the resin of the second sidewall (lower sidewall), and extending in the extending direction (horizontally) of the first sidewall (upper sidewall),
wherein the first wiring bar (5) and the second wiring bar (4) are electrically connected to an outside (exterior) of the housing (6) from the resin of the third sidewall (right sidewall).
Note, under the BRI, the first and second wiring bars being “embedded” as claimed in the resin of the first and second sidewalls does not require that the first and second wiring bars are completely encased in and/or entirely surrounded by the resin of the first and second sidewalls. That is to say, under the BRI, “embedded in the resin” as claimed merely requires that some portion of the wiring bar protrude or otherwise enter into the resin of the sidewall.
Applicant’s own specification as originally filed, while nowhere using the term “embedded,” merely discloses that “parts (indicated by broken lines) of the wiring bars 11d and 11e are formed inside the resin of the sidewalls 11c1 and 11c2.” Paragraph [0104]. As shown in FIG. 15 of the present application, other parts of the wiring bars 11d and 11e (e.g., the horizontal part connecting 11d to element 11a and the horizontal part connecting 11e to element 11b) are not shown by broken lines, and hence, are not “formed inside” the resin of the sidewalls 11c1 and 11c2. In no embodiment does Applicant disclose the wiring bars 11d or 11e being formed entirely inside the sidewalls 11c1 or 11c2. Accordingly, the BRI of “embedded” as claimed to include cases where only a part of the wiring bar is formed inside the resin of the sidewall is consistent with Applicant’s own specification.
Note also, as shown in FIG. 5 of Takeuchi, the wiring bars (5, 4) each include “a projection D which engages with the housing 6.” Column 3, line 68 – column 4, line 1 (emphasis added). Additionally, FIG. 4 shows that the respective portions (C) including the projections (D) of the wiring bars (5, 4) are otherwise flush with the respective upper and lower sidewalls. Accordingly, the respective projection (D) of each of the first and second wiring bars (5, 4) necessarily extends into the respective upper and lower sidewalls of the housing (6), and hence, the first and second wiring bars (5, 4) are embedded (i.e., at least partially) in the resin of the first and second sidewalls as claimed, i.e., at least insomuch as the projections (D) of the wiring bars (5, 4) must extend into the resin of the first and second sidewall in order to “engage” with the housing (6) as explicitly taught.
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 JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights