DETAILED ACTION
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/Restriction
Applicant’s 4 NOV 2025 election (REM page 5) with traverse of Invention I, Species III, embodiment shown in FIGS. 4a, 4b, and described in claims 1-5 and 8-15, is acknowledged. Applicant asserts that: 1. Inventions I and II are not patently distinct; and 2. Species I to V. Regarding 1, Inventions I and II are distinct because the manufacturing methods as claimed can be used to make other and materially different package structures. Moreover, the package structures as claimed can be made by another and materially different manufacturing methods. Hence, applicant’s assertion is not persuasive. Regarding 2, applicant’s assertion is not persuasive because: 1. species always refer to different embodiments of an invention (cf. MPEP §§ 806.04(e) and 806.04(f)); 2. each species requires a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or e-resources, or employing different search queries); 3. prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or 4. the species are likely to raise different prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, the restriction requirement in this application is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, 7, and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. See 20 AUG 2025 Requirement for Restriction/Election.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CHINA on 16 JUN 2022. It is noted that applicant has NOT filed a certified copy of said application as required by U.S.C 119. To be clear, foreign priority is not perfected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 JUN 2023 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on merits. The submission follows provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Typographical errors exist in the following claim language:
claim 3, line 2, replace “device comprises” with “device die comprises” (see lines 2 and 5 of claim 1);
claim 4, line 2, replace “device comprises” with “device die comprises”; and
claim 5, line 2, replace “device comprises” with “device die comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye (US 20160218087; below, “Ye”).
RE 1, Ye, in Annotated FIG. 2 and related text, e.g., Abstract, FIGS. 1, 3-12, and paragraphs [0002] to [0054], claims 1-18, discloses a package structure for a power converter, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
1008
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one power device die (10, e.g., [0021]) comprising a first pad area (dashed rectangle, see footprint of 10 in FIG. 1) and a support area (portion outside dashed rectangle) on a first surface, and
a second pad area (interfaces 11) on a second surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other; and
a control circuit die (20, e.g., [0021]) disposed on the support area (portion outside dashed rectangle) of the at least one power device die (10).
Thus, Ye anticipates this claim.
RE 2, Ye discloses the package structure according to claim 1, wherein the first pad area (dashed rectangle of Annotated FIG. 2) at least partially surrounds the support area (portion outside dashed rectangle).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows (Graham Factors):
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang et al. (US 20230326890; below, “Chang”). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 3, Ye is silent regarding the package structure according to claim 1, wherein the at least one power device (10) comprises a plurality of field effect transistors.
Chang teaches a power device comprising a plurality of field effect transistors (e.g., [0053]).
Ye and Chang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ye as taught by Chang because: 1. field-effect transistors are fast switching and highly efficient, i.e., produce less heat; and 2. all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 4, Ye is silent regarding the package structure according to claim 3, wherein the at least one power device comprises a single die, the plurality of field effect transistors are formed in the single die.
Chang teaches a plurality of field effect transistors being formed in a single die (e.g., [0053]).
Ye and Chang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye as taught by Chang because: 1. field-effect transistors are fast switching and highly efficient, i.e., produce less heat; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 5, Ye is silent regarding the package structure according to claim 3, wherein the at least one power device comprises a plurality of dies, the plurality of field effect transistors are formed in the plurality of dies respectively.
Chang teaches a plurality of dies, a plurality of field effect transistors being formed in the plurality of dies respectively (e.g., [0053]).
Ye and Chang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye as taught by Chang because: 1. field-effect transistors are fast switching and highly efficient, i.e., produce less heat; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 10, Ye discloses the package structure according to claim 3, further comprising:
an adhesive layer (e.g., [0021]) for fixing the control circuit die (20) to the support area (portion outside dashed rectangle) of the at least one power device die (10).
RE 11, modified Ye is silent regarding the package structure according to claim 3, wherein a first set of pads of the control circuit die (20) are connected to sources and gates of the plurality of field effect transistors inside the package structure. Location of bonding wires between control circuit die 20 and power device die 10 not particularly limited.
It would have been obvious … to modify the device of Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang wherein the first set of pads of the control circuit die are connected to sources and gates of the plurality of field effect transistors inside the package structure, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration … is obvious, …. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
RE 14, Ye discloses the package structure according to claim 3, further comprising:
a lead frame comprising a plurality of pins (40, PIN1 to PIN4 of Annotated FIG. 2),
wherein inside the package structure, bonding wires are used to connect the plurality of pins (40, PIN1 to PIN4) of the lead frame to a second set of pads of the control circuit die (20) and (see Chang for: to sources of the plurality of field effect transistors).
Chang teaches a plurality of field effect transistors (e.g., [0053]).
Ye and Chang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye as taught by Chang because: 1. field-effect transistors are fast switching and highly efficient, i.e., produce less heat; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
15. The package structure according to claim 14, wherein (see Chang for: drain pads (23) of the plurality of field effect transistors) and the plurality of pins (40, PIN1 to PIN4) of the lead frame provide an external electrical connection port for the package structure (e.g., heat dissipation).
Chang teaches a plurality of field effect transistors (e.g., [0053]).
Ye and Chang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye as taught by Chang because: 1. field-effect transistors are fast switching and highly efficient, i.e., produce less heat; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang with further evidence from or in further view of Obermeier (US 5565698; below, “Obermeier”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 8, modified Ye is silent regarding the package structure according to claim 3, wherein source pads and gate pads of the plurality of field effect transistors are in the first pad area, and drain pads of the plurality of field effect transistors are in the second pad area.
Obermeier, in Figure 1 and related text, teaches parallel-connected transistors in which sources flank drains which are centrally located.
It would have been obvious … to modify the device of Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang as taught by Obermeier. This is because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
RE 9, modified Ye is silent regarding the package structure (100) according to claim 8, wherein the source pads and gate pads of the plurality of field effect transistors are mirror symmetrical to each other.
Obermeier, in Figure 1 and related text, teaches parallel-connected transistors in which wherein the source pads and gate pads of the plurality of field effect transistors are mirror symmetrical to each other.
It would have been obvious … to modify the device of Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang as taught by Obermeier. This is because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration … is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ye with evidence from or in view of Chang with further evidence from or in further view of Wang (CN 105743340; below, “Wang”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 12, modified Ye is silent regarding the package structure (100) according to claim 3, wherein the at least one power device die (10) further comprises: at least one detection pad, wherein a set of pads of the control circuit die (20) are connected to the at least one detection pad inside the package structure.
Wang, in FIG. 1, teaches a current detecting circuit (104) connected to control circuit (130).
Ye, Chang, and Wang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye and Chang as taught by Wang because: 1. overcurrent protection, enhanced energy efficiency, and reliable system monitoring are realized; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 13, modified Ye is silent regarding the package structure (100) according to claim 12, wherein the at least one detection pad provides a temperature detection signal and/or a current detection signal.
Wang, in FIG. 1, teaches a current detecting circuit (104).
Ye, Chang, and Wang are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Ye and Chang as taught by Wang because: 1. overcurrent protection, enhanced energy efficiency, and reliable system monitoring are realized; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, DUAN et al. (US 20220130800), is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. DUAN et al. does not teach, inter alia, a second pad area on a second surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other; and a control circuit die (120) disposed on the support area (12) of the at least one power device die (110).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815