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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: 1-28 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The process as claimed cannot be used to make another and materially different product” based on the observation that base claims 1 and 29 are substantially similar. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement acknowledges that “Claim 1 links inventions I and II” (as outlined on page 2, last paragraph, which continues on next page of restriction requirement of 8/13/2025); and that “The restriction requirement is between the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claims(s)”. In other words, if claim 1 is found allowable and claim 29 is still has all limitations of allowable claim 1, the restriction required shall be withdrawn and claims 29 with its dependent claims will be rejoined. and it’s dependent claims would be rejoined. However, if claim 1 is not allowable, the difference in process of dependent claims 37 still exists (as outlined on page 2, last paragraph of restriction requirement of 8/13/2025).and that is the reason for serious “examination burden” explained in section 5 starting on page 3 of restriction requirement of 8/13/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 5205036), hereinafter Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki (US 5205036) (refer to Figure 2) teaches a device (Col. 5, lines 1-6) comprising:
device parts (comprising 21a, 23 – see Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 18-21); and
a diamond-like based material coating (30, see Col. 3, lines 18-21, shown in Figure 2, also see Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating can be used) arranged on one or more of the device parts (eg. On 21a – see Col. 3, lines 18-21 and Figure 2), wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises at least one of a diamond-like carbon (DLC) material and/or a diamond-like nanocomposite (DLN) material (Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating can be used).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki (refer to Figure 2) teaches the device according to claim 1 further comprising a molding compound (31, see Col. 3, lines 18-21) arranged on and/or around one or more of the device parts.
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 2 further wherein the molding compound (31) is further arranged on one or more of the device parts (eg. 29)or 25 – see Figure 2 implemented without the diamond-like based material coating coated thereon.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the device parts comprise one or more of a first lead (21 – see Figure 2), a second lead, at least one device component (23 – see Figure 2), a mount, at least one interconnect, a component attach, and/or at least one connection (also see Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is arranged on all exposed surfaces of one or more of the device parts (such as 21a; see Figure 2 and also see Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 2 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is arranged on surfaces of one or more of the device parts (such as 21a; see Figure 2 and also see Col. 3, lines 18-21) that contact the molding compound (31).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises a film deposited, arranged, configured, and/or implemented on one or more of the device parts (such as 21a; see Figure 2 and also see Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises at least one precursor material configured to control coating characteristics and coating functionalities. Whereas claim 8 is a product claim, the claim recites a method of steps therein, i.e. “precursor material” (as precursor material is used in the process of making and not part of the final coating material that is synthesized from the precursor. Therefore, the claim amounts to a product by process claim. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 comprising the diamond-like based material coating. Whereas claim 8 is a product claim, the claim recites a method of steps therein, i.e. “plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD)”. Therefore, the claim amounts to a product by process claim. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises the diamond-like nanocomposite (DLN) coating material that comprises networks of one or more of a-CH and a-SiO (Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to enhance high temperature stability (property is inherent as structure is taught) of one or more of the device parts.
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to lower friction and coating stress between one or more of the device parts and/or between one or more of the device parts and a molding compound (property is inherent as structure is taught).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises elemental doping (Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises nitrogen doping (Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises a layer on the one or more of the device parts; and wherein the layer has a thickness of 5 μm or less (Col. 4, lines 53-60).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to reduce a diffusion of humidity and moisture to one or more of the device parts (Col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to mitigate degradations and/or failures of one or more of the device parts (Col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 18, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to reduce migration and/or diffusion of ionic impurities (such as those dissolved in polar solvent water or moisture, Col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 19, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to reduce migration and/or diffusion of ionic impurities presented in a molding compound (Col. 2, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 20, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is configured and/or formulated to facilitate a conduction of heat. (Col. 3, lines 54-63)
Regarding claim 21, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is implemented as a single layer on one or more of the device parts or as multiple layers on one or more of the device parts.
Regarding claim 22, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating is implemented with a second coating layer on one or more of the device parts (at least single layer is shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 23, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 22 wherein the diamond-like based material coating and the second coating layer form a bilayer on one or more of the device parts (see Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating and silicon nitride can be used).
Regarding claim 24, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 22 wherein the second coating layer comprises a polyimide material (see Col. 2, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 25, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 22 wherein the second coating layer comprises a composite coating material that comprises a polymer matrix including and/or incorporating ceramic particles (see Col. 2, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 26, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 4 wherein the at least one device component comprises one or more active devices, passive devices, dies, chips, and/or transistors (comprising 21a – see Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 27, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 4 wherein the at least one interconnect comprises one or more wires, wire bonds, and/or leads (comprising 29 or 21c – see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 28, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the device comprises a package, a power device package, and/or a power module (Col. 3, lines 18-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892