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 § 103
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson (US 20240213124 A1) in view of Ewer (US 6075286 A).
Regarding claim 1, McPherson discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 12, exploded view), comprising:
a first substrate (300);
a first power semiconductor die (any one of 200; [0087]: “power semiconductor devices”) attached to the first substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 34); and
a first metallic clip (406) having a plurality of first contact regions (See annotated figure, showing a single contact per region of each die) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”) to a first metallic region of the first power semiconductor die (Welding is to 422 which corresponds to die 200. See annotated figure. Note: the plate must necessarily be metallic in order to be welded to the metal clip, because welding is the joining of two metals by flowing them together. Clip material [0238]: “The clip may be a formed metal”),
wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are laterally separated from one another by a first gap in the first metallic clip.
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 12 and Fig. 34 of McPherson.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
741
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McPherson fails to teach the welding method for the first contact regions. Thus, McPherson fails to teach “first contact regions ultrasonically welded”.
However, McPherson teaches welding methods used for other regions of the first metallic clip include ultrasonic welding ([0099]: “ultrasonic welding”) among a finite selection of known suitable methods. Modifying the welding method applied to the first contact regions by choosing ultrasonic welding would meet the claim. Doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and had predictable results because it uses a method chosen from a finite selection of methods pertinent to the claimed structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed first contact regions ultrasonically welded because it uses a method known suitable for the structure. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
McPherson fails to teach “a plurality of first contact regions ultrasonically welded to a first metallic region of the first power semiconductor die, wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are laterally separated from one another by a first gap in the first metallic clip”.
However, Ewer teaches clips having multiple contact regions on a single die. In particular, Ewer teaches a plurality of first contact regions (Fig. 3: 12b) ultrasonically welded (Col. 2, ln. 66-Col. 3, ln. 3: “ultrasonic bonding”) to a first metallic region of the first power semiconductor die (30, as shown in Fig. 2 for the alternative clip embodiment), wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are laterally separated from one another by a first gap (gap 12c) in the first metallic clip. Modifying the first contact region of McPherson by including a plurality of contact regions for the first power semiconductor die would arrive at the claimed contact region configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Ewer: Col. 2, ln. 66-Col. 3, ln. 3: “ultrasonic bonding”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Ewer provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a plurality of contact regions on a die in that it would improve resistance to thermal stress for the weld (Col. 3, lns. 19-24: “provides improved resiliency to thermal stresses”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed contact region configuration because it would improve resistance to thermal stress for the weld. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 3 of Ewer.
PNG
media_image3.png
366
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (Ewer: Fig. 3),
wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are connected to a body region (See annotated figure, a portion of 12d) of the first metallic clip by a level transition region (See annotated figure, a portion of 12d) of the first metallic clip such that the first contact regions are disposed at a first level (a level in the Z direction) and the body region is disposed at a second level (a level in the Z direction) different than the first level (different in the Z direction),
and wherein the first level is closer to the first substrate than the second level (closer in the Z direction).
Regarding claim 3, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12), further comprising:
a second power semiconductor die (another one of 200) attached to the first substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 34),
wherein the first metallic clip has a plurality (Ewer: Fig. 3: regions 12b. Note: the same reasons cited/relied upon in the claim 1 rejection of “a plurality of first contact regions” is relied upon here for these substantially similar “plurality of second contact regions”.) of second contact regions (McPherson: Fig. 12: See annotated figure) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”. Note: “ultrasonically welded” is reasonably taught here for the same reasons applied to the first contact regions in the claim 1 rejection) to a first metallic region of the second power semiconductor die (See annotated figure),
wherein the second contact regions are laterally separated from one another by a second gap (Ewer: Fig. 3: gap 12c) in the first metallic clip.
Regarding claim 4, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 3 (McPherson: Fig. 12),
wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are connected to a body region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip by a first level transition region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip and the second contact regions of the first metallic clip are connected to the body region by a second level transition region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip such that the first contact regions and the second contact regions are disposed at a first level (a level in the Y direction) and the body region is disposed at a second level (a level in the Y direction) different than the first level (different in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35), and
wherein the first level is closer to the first substrate than the second level (closer in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35).
Regarding claim 5, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12), further comprising:
a second power semiconductor die (another one of 200) attached to the first substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 34); and
a second metallic clip (408) having a plurality of first contact regions (See annotated figure) ultrasonically welded (Note: “ultrasonically welded” is reasonably taught here for the same reasons applied to the first contact regions in the claim 1 rejection) to a first metallic region of the first substrate (shown in the assembled view in Fig. 34),
wherein the first metallic clip has a plurality (Ewer: Fig. 3: regions 12b. Note: the same reasons cited/relied upon in the claim 1 rejection of “a plurality of first contact regions” is relied upon here for these substantially similar “plurality of first contact regions”.) of second contact regions (McPherson: Fig. 12: See annotated figure) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”. Note: “ultrasonically welded” is reasonably taught here for the same reasons applied to the first contact regions in the claim 1 rejection) to a first metallic region of the second power semiconductor die (See annotated figure),
wherein the second contact regions are laterally separated from one another by a second gap (Ewer: Fig. 3: gap 12c) in the first metallic clip.
Regarding claim 6, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 5 (McPherson: Fig. 12),
wherein the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are connected to a body region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip by a first level transition region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip and the second contact regions of the first metallic clip are connected to the body region by a second level transition region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip such that the first contact regions and the second contact regions are disposed at a first level (a level in the Y direction) and the body region is disposed at a second level (a level in the Y direction) different than the first level (different in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35), and
wherein the first level is closer to the first substrate than the second level (closer in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35).
Regarding claim 8, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12), wherein the first metallic region of the first power semiconductor die is a metallic plate (422 is shown as a plate) attached to a bond pad of the first power semiconductor die ([0186]: “between…may be arranged…422”).
Regarding claim 11, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (Ewer, Fig. 3), wherein a linear dimension of the first gap (See annotated figure) in the first metallic clip measured in a lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction) between the first contact regions of the first metallic clip is greater than a linear dimension of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip (See annotated figure) measured in the same lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction).
Regarding claim 12, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12), further comprising:
a second substrate (Fig. 13 shows a duplication of the module of Fig. 12. Citations here for the second substrate and associated structures are made in reference to a duplicated Fig. 12 module, and configured according to Fig. 13.);
a second power semiconductor die (any one of 200; [0087]: “power semiconductor devices”) attached to the second substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 34); and
a second metallic clip (406 with 408. See annotated Fig. 13) having a plurality of first contact regions (See annotated Fig. 12) ultrasonically welded (Note: “ultrasonically welded” is reasonably taught here for the same reasons applied to the first contact regions in the claim 1 rejection) to a first metallic region of the first substrate (shown for 408 in the assembled view in Fig. 34) and
a plurality (Ewer: Fig. 3: regions 12b. Note: the same reasons cited/relied upon in the claim 1 rejection of “a plurality of first contact regions” is relied upon here for these substantially similar “plurality of first contact regions”.) of second contact regions (McPherson: Fig. 12: See annotated figure) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”. Note: “ultrasonically welded” is reasonably taught here for the same reasons applied to the first contact regions in the claim 1 rejection) to a first metallic region of the second power semiconductor die (See annotated figure),
wherein the first contact regions of the second metallic clip are laterally separated from one another by a first gap (See annotated Fig. 13) in the second metallic clip,
wherein the second contact regions of the second metallic clip are laterally separated from one another by a second gap (Ewer: Fig. 3: gap 12c) in the second metallic clip.
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 13 of McPherson.
PNG
media_image4.png
746
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 13, McPherson discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 12, exploded view), comprising:
a first substrate (300);
a second substrate (Fig. 13 shows a duplication of the module of Fig. 12. Citations for the second substrate and associated structures are made in reference to a duplicated Fig.12 module, and configured according to Fig. 13.);
a plurality of first power semiconductor dies (any ones of 200; [0087]: “power semiconductor devices”) attached to a first metallic region of the first substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 13);
a plurality of second power semiconductor dies (any other ones of 200; [0087]: “power semiconductor devices”) attached to a first metallic region of the second substrate (“attached” shown in the assembled view in Fig. 13);
a first metallic clip (406. See annotated Fig. 13) having a plurality of first contact regions (See annotated figure, showing a single contact per region of each die) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”) to a first metallic region of each of the first power semiconductor dies (Welding is to 422 which corresponds to die 200. See annotated figure. Note: the plate must necessarily be metallic in order to be welded to the metal clip, because welding is the joining of two metals by flowing them together. Clip material [0238]: “The clip may be a formed metal”); and
a second metallic clip (406 with 408. See annotated Fig. 13) having a plurality of first contact regions (See annotated Fig. 12) ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the first substrate (shown for 408 in the assembled view in Fig. 34; [0126]: “a direct welded connection”) and
a plurality of second contact regions (See annotated Fig. 12) ultrasonically welded ([0125]: “may include welded portions”) to a first metallic region of each of the second power semiconductor dies (Welding is to 422 which corresponds to die 200. See annotated figure. Note: the plate must necessarily be metallic in order to be welded to the metal clip, because welding is the joining of two metals by flowing them together. Clip material [0238]: “The clip may be a formed metal”),
wherein each group of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same first power semiconductor die are laterally separated from one another by a first gap in the first metallic clip,
wherein the first contact regions of the second metallic clip are laterally separated from one another (separated in the Z direction) by a first gap in the second metallic clip (See annotated Fig. 12. Annotated as “Gap” for 408),
wherein each group of the second contact regions of the second metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same second power semiconductor die are laterally separated from one another by a second gap in the second metallic clip.
McPherson fails to teach the welding method for the first and second contact regions. Thus, McPherson fails to teach the first and second metallic clip each having “first contact regions ultrasonically welded” and the second metallic clip having “second contact regions ultrasonically welded”.
However, McPherson teaches welding methods used for other regions of the first metallic clip include ultrasonic welding ([0099]: “ultrasonic welding”) among a finite selection of known suitable methods. Modifying the welding method applied to the first and second contact regions by choosing ultrasonic welding would meet the claim. Doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and had predictable results because it uses a method chosen from a finite selection of methods pertinent to the claimed structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed first and second contact regions ultrasonically welded because it uses a method known suitable for the structure. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
McPherson fails to teach the clips having multiple first/second contact regions on a same die. Thus, McPherson fails to teach “a first metallic clip having a plurality of first contact regions ultrasonically welded to a first metallic region of each of the first power semiconductor dies”, “a plurality of second contact regions ultrasonically welded to a first metallic region of each of the second power semiconductor dies, wherein each group of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same first power semiconductor die are laterally separated from one another by a first gap in the first metallic clip”, and “wherein each group of the second contact regions of the second metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same second power semiconductor die are laterally separated from one another by a second gap in the second metallic clip”.
However, Ewer teaches clips having multiple contact regions on a single die. In particular, Ewer teaches:
a first metallic clip (Fig. 3: 10) having a plurality of first contact regions (12b) ultrasonically welded (Col. 2, ln. 66-Col. 3, ln. 3: “ultrasonic bonding”) to a first metallic region of each of the first power semiconductor dies (30, as shown in Fig. 2 for the alternative clip embodiment)
wherein each group of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same first power semiconductor die are laterally separated from one another by a first gap (12c) in the first metallic clip
Modifying the first and second contact regions of McPherson by including multiple contact regions on each of the first and second power semiconductor dies would arrive at the claimed contact region configurations. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Ewer: Col. 2, ln. 66-Col. 3, ln. 3: “ultrasonic bonding”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Ewer provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have multiple first/second contact regions on a same die in that it would improve resistance to thermal stress for the weld (Col. 3, lns. 19-24: “provides improved resiliency to thermal stresses”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed contact region configurations because they would improve resistance to thermal stress for the weld. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 13 (McPherson: Fig. 12),
wherein: each group of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same first power semiconductor die are connected to a body region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip by a level transition region (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip such that the first contact regions of the first metallic clip are disposed at a first level (a level in the Y direction) and the body region of the first metallic clip is disposed at a second level (a level in the Y direction) different than the first level (different in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35);
each group of the second contact regions of the second metallic clip ultrasonically welded to the first metallic region of the same second power semiconductor die are connected to a body region (See annotated figure) of the second metallic clip by a level transition region (See annotated figure) of the second metallic clip such that the second contact regions of the second metallic clip are disposed at the first level (a level in the Y direction) and the body region of the second metallic clip is disposed at the second level (a level in the Y direction); and
the first level is closer to the first and second substrates than the second level (closer in the Y direction. Similarly shown in cross-sectional view of Fig. 35).
Regarding claim 17, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 13 (Ewer: Fig. 3),
wherein a linear dimension of each first gap (See annotated figure) in the first metallic clip measured in a lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction) between the corresponding group of first contact regions of the first metallic clip (the gap is between adjacent contact regions in the X direction) is greater than a linear dimension of the group of first contact regions (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip measured in the same lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction), and
wherein a linear dimension of each second gap (See annotated figure) in the second metallic clip measured in a lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction) between the corresponding group of second contact regions of the second metallic clip (the gap is between adjacent contact regions in the X direction) is greater than a linear dimension of the group of second contact regions (See annotated figure) of the second metallic clip measured in the same lateral direction (as measured in the Y direction).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson in view of Ewer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minotti (US 20220320032 A1).
Regarding claim 7, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (Fig. 12),
wherein the first metallic region of the first power semiconductor die is a bond pad (200 is weld bonded to 406 thus the place of bonding is a “bond pad”), and wherein the bond pad has a thickness greater than 5 µm.
McPherson in view of Ewer fails to teach dimensions for the bond pad. Thus, McPherson fails to teach “and wherein the bond pad has a thickness greater than 5 µm”.
Minotti discloses a first metallic region (Fig. 11: 85) of a first power semiconductor die (72) that is a bond pad ([0061]: “contact pad”; See Fig. 10 for bonding with clip 50), and wherein the bond pad has a thickness greater than 5 µm ([0061]: “for example with a thickness of 4-9 μm”, overlapping the claimed range).
Modifying the bond pad of McPherson in view of Ewer by including the thickness of Minotti would arrive at the claimed bond pad configuration. Doing so would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and had a reasonable expectation of success because both McPherson and Minotti teach bond pads for a first power semiconductor die (McPherson: 200: [0087]: “power semiconductor devices”; Minotti: 72: [0041]: “dice may integrate power devices”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed bond pad configuration because it is a known thickness in the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) Gardner.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson in view of Ewer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nanba (US 20060118932 A1, from IDS).
Regarding claim 9, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12), but fails to teach “wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint, and wherein each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip has an area that is less than 4 times an area of the sonotrode imprint”.
Nanba discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 3; [0091]: “The specific example of the semiconductor device is such as a power MOSFET”),
wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip (6; [0056]: “aluminum can be used as materials of the bonding strap”) that faces away from the first substrate (8) has a sonotrode imprint ([0060]: “the top protruding portions 4 of the bonding-tool 1” imprints into clip 6 during “the bonding tool 1 for propagating ultrasonic vibration comes in contact with the bonding-strap 6”. See annotated figure for regions defining the imprint), and
wherein each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip has an area that is less than 4 times an area of the sonotrode imprint (The first contact regions are smaller than/similar to the sonotrode imprint, based on the dashed reference lines. Thus, these regions have an area “less than 4 times” the imprint area).
Modifying the first contact regions of McPherson by including the sonotrode imprint of Nanba would arrive at the claimed regions and imprint. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Nanba: [0060]: “ultrasonic vibration”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Nanba provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the imprint in that it would 1) reduce manufacturing cost by extending the service life of the sonotrode ([0062]: “improve the life of the ultrasonic bonding-tool”) and 2) would improve bonding strength in the module ([0063]: “a mechanical strength of the semiconductor device…is higher”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed imprint because it would reduce manufacturing cost and improve bonding strength. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 3 of Nanba.
PNG
media_image5.png
225
613
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the semiconductor module of claim 1 (McPherson: Fig. 12),
wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint,
wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip extends (extends in the X direction) along a side of the sonotrode imprint (by being aside in the Z direction), and
wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip is longer than the side of the sonotrode imprint (The gap 12c of Ewer: Fig. 3 is “longer” because the gap extends beyond the contact regions, up a level transition region, and into a body region. See annotated figure).
McPherson in view of Ewer fails to disclose the first contact regions including a sonotrode imprint. Thus, McPherson in view of Ewer fails to teach “wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint, wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip extends along a side of the sonotrode imprint, and wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip is longer than the side of the sonotrode imprint”.
Nanba discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 3; [0091]: “The specific example of the semiconductor device is such as a power MOSFET”), wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip (6; [0056]: “aluminum can be used as materials of the bonding strap”) that faces away from the first substrate (8) has a sonotrode imprint ([0060]: “the top protruding portions 4 of the bonding-tool 1” imprints into clip 6 during “the bonding tool 1 for propagating ultrasonic vibration comes in contact with the bonding-strap 6”. See annotated figure for regions defining the imprint).
Modifying the first contact regions of McPherson by including the sonotrode imprint of Nanba would arrive at the claimed regions, imprint, and gap configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Nanba: [0060]: “ultrasonic vibration…bonding”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Nanba provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the imprint in that it would 1) reduce manufacturing cost by extending the service life of the sonotrode ([0062]: “improve the life of the ultrasonic bonding-tool”) and 2) would improve bonding strength in module ([0063]: “a mechanical strength of the semiconductor device…is higher”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed imprint because it would reduce manufacturing cost and improve bonding strength. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson and Ewer as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nanba.
Regarding claim 15, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 13 (McPherson: Fig. 12), but fails to teach “wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint and an area that is less than 4 times an area of the sonotrode imprint, wherein a surface of each of the second contact regions of the second metallic clip that faces away from the second substrate has a sonotrode imprint and an area that is less than 4 times an area of the sonotrode imprint”.
Nanba discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 3; [0091]: “The specific example of the semiconductor device is such as a power MOSFET”),
wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip (6; [0056]: “aluminum can be used as materials of the bonding strap”) that faces away from the first substrate (8) has a sonotrode imprint ([0060]: “the top protruding portions 4 of the bonding-tool 1” imprints into clip 6 during “the bonding tool 1 for propagating ultrasonic vibration comes in contact with the bonding-strap 6”. See annotated figure for regions defining the imprint) and an area that is less than 4 times an area of the sonotrode imprint (The first contact regions are smaller than/similar to the sonotrode imprint, based on the dashed reference lines. Thus, these regions have an area “less than 4 times” the imprint area).
Modifying the first and second contact regions of McPherson by including the sonotrode imprint of Nanba would arrive at the claimed regions and imprints. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Nanba: [0060]: “ultrasonic vibration”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Nanba provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the imprints in that it would 1) reduce manufacturing cost by extending the service life of the sonotrode ([0062]: “improve the life of the ultrasonic bonding-tool”) and 2) would improve bonding strength in module ([0063]: “a mechanical strength of the semiconductor device…is higher”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed imprints because they would reduce manufacturing cost and improve bonding strength. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 16, McPherson in view of Ewer discloses the power semiconductor module of claim 13 (Ewer: Fig. 3),
wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint,
wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip extends along a side of the sonotrode imprint, and wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip is longer than the side of the sonotrode imprint (The gap 12c is “longer” because the gap extends beyond the contact region, up a level transition region, and into a body region. See annotated figure).
McPherson in view of Ewer fails to disclose the first contact regions including a sonotrode imprint. Thus, McPherson fails to teach “wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions of the first metallic clip that faces away from the first substrate has a sonotrode imprint, wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip extends along a side of the sonotrode imprint, and wherein the first gap in the first metallic clip is longer than the side of the sonotrode imprint”.
Nanba discloses a power semiconductor module (Fig. 3; [0091]: “The specific example of the semiconductor device is such as a power MOSFET”),
wherein a surface of each of the first contact regions (See annotated figure) of the first metallic clip (6; [0056]: “aluminum can be used as materials of the bonding strap”) that faces away from the first substrate (8) has a sonotrode imprint ([0060]: “the top protruding portions 4 of the bonding-tool 1” imprints into clip 6 during “the bonding tool 1 for propagating ultrasonic vibration comes in contact with the bonding-strap 6”. See annotated figure for regions defining the imprint).
Modifying the first contact regions of McPherson in view of Ewer by including the sonotrode imprint of Nanba would arrive at the claimed regions, imprint, and gap configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in each situation ultrasonic welding is used (Nanba: [0060]: “ultrasonic vibration”; McPherson: [0099]: “ultrasonic welding”). Nanba provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the imprint in that it would 1) reduce manufacturing cost by extending the service life of the sonotrode ([0062]: “improve the life of the ultrasonic bonding-tool”) and 2) would improve bonding strength in module ([0063]: “a mechanical strength of the semiconductor device…is higher”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed imprint because it would reduce manufacturing cost and improve bonding strength. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that “the McPherson reference seemingly teaches away from forming a gap in the single contact region of lead frame first portion 406 that is attached to each individual power device 200”. Remarks at pg. 13.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the claim amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection raised in the instant Office action and rely upon Ewer to teach the contended limitation.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to claim 13 that “the slots (the alleged gaps) formed in McPherson's lead frame power interconnection 400 do not laterally separate a plurality of contact regions of the lead frame that are attached to a metallic region of the same power device 200 (alleged power semiconductor dies)”. Remarks at pg. 14.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner agrees, though notes the prior Office action has relied upon Ewer to teach the contended limitation. The instant Office action is relying upon Ewer in the same way as before to teach the contended limitation. However, the remarks in the rejection have been revisions directed to matters of form, intended to promote clarity of the record. No new citations or rationale are relied upon in the instant Office action.
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 WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights