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 .
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 1-14, 16, 18-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 5205036) of prior record, 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).
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 (described as “protective film” that ensured during testing that “none of twenty samples were defective” in contrast to no protective film samples - see Col. 5, lines 14-19).
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 at least one device component or at least one interconnect (such as 21 or 23; also see Col. 3, lines 18-29).
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), and wherein the film comprises a DLC-SiOx film (Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes coating may be “multi-layer” of films “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating and silicon oxide; i.e. DLC-SiOx film).
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 that comprises DLC-SiOx (Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes coating may be “multi-layer” of films “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating and silicon oxide; i.e. DLC-SiOx film). 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 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 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 27, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 4 wherein the at least one interconnect comprises the diamond-like based material coating and comprises one or more wires, wire bonds, and/or leads (comprising 21b – see Figure 2, noting that 30 coats 21b, described as “inner lead 21b” in Col. 3, lines 20--25).
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).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki.
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 300 to 5000 angstroms (Col. 4, lines 53-60), which overlaps with claimed 0.1 µm to 7 µm. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claims 17, 26 and 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Kuenle (US 20150348824), hereinafter Kuenle.
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 but does not teach the remainder of claim 17. Kuenle (US 20150348824) teaches a device with a similar diamond-like based material coating arranged on one or more of the device parts wherein the diamond-like based material coating (106, para 49; also see para 16) comprises at least one of a diamond-like carbon (DLC) material (para 16-17), wherein the DLC comprises amounts of sp3 hybridized carbon atoms or amounts of tetrahedral amorphous carbon (para 16 and para 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki to include the missing limitations of claim x outlined above. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki for at least for the purpose of achieving specific physical or chemical properties such as hardness (para 2 of Kuenle) or improved diffusion properties (para 81 of Kuenle).
Regarding claim 26, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 4 but does not clearly teach wherein the at least one device component comprises one or more active devices, passive devices, dies, chips, and/or transistors (although it teaches comprising 21a – see Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 18-21). Kuenle (US 20150348824) teaches a device with a similar diamond-like based material coating arranged on one or more of the device parts wherein the diamond-like based material coating (106, para 49; also see para 16) coats an active device that is part of a semiconductor wafer (para 4; also see para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki so that the at least one device component comprises one or more active devices, dies or chips. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki for at least for the purpose of achieving specific physical or chemical properties such as hardness (para 2 of Kuenle) or improved diffusion properties (para 81 of Kuenle) of an active component of the device.
Regarding claim 57, 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 on the one or more of the device parts; and wherein the layer has a thickness of 300 to 5000 angstroms (Col. 4, lines 53-60), which overlaps with claimed 0.1 µm to 7 µm. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Yamazaki does not clearly teach wherein the device parts comprises one or more “active devices, passive devices, dies, chips, and/or transistors” (although it teaches comprising 21a – see Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 18-21). Kuenle (US 20150348824) teaches a device with a similar diamond-like based material coating arranged on one or more of the device parts wherein the diamond-like based material coating (106, para 49; also see para 16) coats an active device that is part of a semiconductor wafer (para 4; also see para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki so that the device parts comprises one or more active devices, dies, or chips. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki for at least for the purpose of achieving specific physical or chemical properties such as hardness (para 2 of Kuenle) or improved diffusion properties (para 81 of Kuenle) of an active component of the device.
Regarding claim 58, Yamazaki (refer to Figures 1A-1C) teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the diamond-like based material coating comprises a DLC-SiOx film (Col. 2, lines 15-20 describes coating may be “multi-layer” of films “a diamond like carbon” or “DLC” coating and silicon oxide; i.e. DLC-SiOx film).
Yamazaki does not clearly teach wherein the device parts comprises one or more “active devices, passive devices, dies, chips, and/or transistors” (although it teaches comprising 21a – see Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 18-21). Kuenle (US 20150348824) teaches a device with a similar diamond-like based material coating arranged on one or more of the device parts wherein the diamond-like based material coating (106, para 49; also see para 16) coats an active device that is part of a semiconductor wafer (para 4; also see para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Yamazaki so that the device parts comprises one or more active devices, dies, or chips. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki for at least for the purpose of achieving specific physical or chemical properties such as hardness (para 2 of Kuenle) or improved diffusion properties (para 81 of Kuenle) of an active component of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that “YAMAZAKI teaches away from implementing DLC” because it shows “implementation only on the lead frame 21 and does not describe coating semiconductor dies, interconnects…” (especially see page 9, last paragraph). This argument is not persuasive. As explained in rejection of claim 1, Yamazaki teaches 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), and 21a is described as “die 21a” (Col. 3, lines 24-30). Further, claim 1 requires the coating on “on one or more device parts” and lead frame 21 is also a device part, and hence reads on the claimed “one or more of the device parts”
On page 9, applicant also argues that YAMAZAKI teaches “silicon nitride or silicon carbide are particularly superior” compared to disclosed DLC, and as such, deems “YAMAZAKI teaches away from implementing DLC” (especially see page 9, last 2 paragraphs). This argument is not persuasive. The reference may suggest additional advantages of some materials over DLC, but it does not discredit DLC in general for all applications and does teach it’s use. The fact that some of the other materials disclosed may be superior in some aspects does not mean teaching against DLC.
On page 10, applicant argues YAMAZAKI “does not disclose any coating that mitigates device part degradation or failure mechanism”. This issue has been addressed in the revised rejection of claim 1. Further, the recitation of ‘configured and/or formulated to mitigate degradations and/or failures of one or more of the device parts’ is only a statement of the inherent properties of the “diamond-like based material coating”. The structure in Yamazaki reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Also see MPEP 2112.01.
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 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
Prosecution Insights