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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 12, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 17-20 in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims are drawn to a related power module including a plurality of spacers extending from the metal circuit in a predetermined direction. This is not found persuasive because the method requires more than general steps (“forming”, etc.). Instead, the method requires specifically types of steps (“printing”, “curing”). These require a different search that the search needed for the product claim.
For these reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
That said, the application has allowable subject matter. If applicants seek to re-join the claims, then the withdrawn claims must also be directed to the allowable subject matter. Furthermore, claims 17-20 should be reviewed for antecedent basis issues and other Section 112(b) issues, such as references to indeterminant terms like “predetermined”. These issues should be fixed when amending withdrawn claims in order to place them in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: DE, on page 12, paragraph 73. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 151 in Figure 1. Applicants may have intended this number to be 114. See applicants’ specification, page 7, paragraph 44, line 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, paragraph 35, line 4: Change “As” to “as”.
Page 7, paragraph 38, line 3 of the page: Change “titled” to “tilted”, if this is what applicants intended. Applicants may want to do a search of the application to correct “titled” with “tilted”.
Page 9, paragraph 55, line 1: Change 123 to 123A.
Page 9, paragraph 57, paragraph 57, line 1: Change “titled” to “tilted”. See note above.
Page 12, paragraph 73, line 3: Change “(S22 and S22)” to “(S22 and S23)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: Change “the first substrate of the first substrate” to “the first surface of the substrate”, if this is what applicants intended.
Claims 2-11 are objected to for depending from objected to base claim 1.
Claim 12, line 5: Change “the first substrate of the first substrate” to “the first surface of the substrate”, if this is what applicants intended.
Claims 13-16 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 12.
Claim 16, lines 4-5: Please provide antecedent basis for “the wire bonding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: This claim requires “a second substrate spaced from and facing the first substrate of the first substrate….” This language is confusing because the phrase “the first substrate of the first substrate” does not make sense. Because the language does not make sense, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 requires “wherein the first spacer and the second spacer are extended toward each other.” Claim 1 also requires “a semiconductor chip [that is] disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate….” Claim 2 requires that “the semiconductor chip includes a first surface connected to the second spacer, and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the semiconductor chip and connected to the first metal circuit.” This language is confusing because the second spacer extends toward the first spacer. No second spacer has been defined that is connected the semiconductor chip, which is between the first and second substrates. Because claim 2’s requirements appear to conflict with claim 1’s requirements, claim 2 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 defines a second metal circuit. Claim 9 requires the second metal circuit to have a preset first thicknesses. However, the claim is unclear how to determine a preset first thickness. Because claim 9 is vague on how to determine a preset first thickness, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 12: This claim requires “a second substrate spaced from and facing the first substrate of the first substrate….” This language is confusing because the phrase “the first substrate of the first substrate” does not make sense. Because the language does not make sense, claim 12 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 12: Claim 16 is rejected on two bases. First claim 12 defines a second metal circuit. Claim 16 requires the second metal circuit to have a preset first thicknesses. However, the claim is unclear how to determine a preset first thickness. Because claim 16 is vague on how to determine a preset first thickness, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, neither claim 12 nor claim 16 provide antecedent basis for the wire bonding in lines 4-5. Because antecedent basis is missing, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Malhan, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0054439, Figures 1-7,13A, and 13B.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
573
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
641
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
393
632
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
407
509
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Malhan Figures 1-7, 13A, and 13B disclose a power module (100), the power module (100) comprising: a first substrate (2) including a first metal circuit (10) disposed on a first surface of the first substrate (2), and a first spacer (post (70)) extending from the first metal circuit (10) in a first direction; a second substrate (1) spaced from and facing the first [surface] of the first substrate (2) in a second direction, and including a second metal circuit (7, 8, 9) disposed on a first surface of the second substrate (1) facing the first surface of the first substrate (2), and a second spacer (unnumbered interconnect post or post (70)) extending from the second metal circuit (7, 8, 9) in the second direction; and a semiconductor chip (20, 30) disposed between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1), wherein the first spacer (post (70)) and the second spacer (post (70)) are extended toward each other. Malhan specification ¶¶ 61-69, 72. As for the requirement that the power module be for a vehicle, this requirement, in the preamble, is directed to the use of the device and does not define the claimed invention’s limitations, and thus is of no significance to claim construction. MPEP § 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses the semiconductor chip (20, 30) includes a first surface connected to the second spacer (unnumbered interconnect post), and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the semiconductor chip (20, 30) and connected to the first metal circuit (10). Id.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses the first spacer (post (70)) and the second spacer (post (70)) are electrically connected to each other for electric connection between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1). Id.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses the first spacer (post (70)) and the second spacer (post (70)) are extended from the first metal circuit (10) and the second metal circuit (7, 8, 9), but is silent as to the method by which they are formed. However, the process limitation of how a layer is formed has no patentable weight in claims drawn to structure. Note that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, not the process by which the product is made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 n. 3 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523, 525 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1974); In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161, 166-67 (CCPA 1975); In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 103 (CCPA 1976); and In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product-by-process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product-by-process claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, according to case law.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses the first spacer (post (70)) and the second spacer (post (70)) are present, but is silent as to the method by which they are prepared. However, the process limitation of how a layer is formed has no patentable weight in claims drawn to structure. Note that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, not the process by which the product is made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 n. 3 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523, 525 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1974); In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161, 166-67 (CCPA 1975); In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 103 (CCPA 1976); and In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product-by-process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product-by-process claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, according to case law.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses at least two among the semiconductor chip (20, 30), the first substrate (2), and the second substrate (1) are connected to each other by a bonding process including soldering or sintering. Malhan specification ¶ 72.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1: Malhan discloses a power lead disposed between the first metal circuit (10) and the second metal circuit (7, 8, 9).
Regarding claim 12: Malhan Figures 10-7, 13A, and 13B disclose a power module (100), the power (100) module comprising: a first substrate (2) including: a first metal circuit (10) disposed on a first surface of the first substrate (2); and a first spacer (post (70)) extending from the first metal circuit (10) in a first direction; a second substrate (1) spaced from and facing the first [surface] of the first substrate (2) in a second direction, and including: a second metal circuit (7, 8, 9) disposed on a first surface of the second substrate (1) facing the first surface of the first substrate (2); a second spacer (unnumbered interconnect post) extending from the second metal circuit (7, 8, 9) in the second direction; and an additional second spacer (post (70)) extending from the second metal circuit (7, 8, 9) in the second direction; a semiconductor chip (20, 30) disposed between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1), wherein the first spacer (post (70)) and the additional second spacer (post (70)) are extended toward each other. Id. ¶¶ 61-69, 72. As for the requirement that the power module be for a vehicle, this requirement, in the preamble, is directed to the use of the device and does not define the claimed invention’s limitations, and thus is of no significance to claim construction. MPEP § 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12: Malhan discloses the first spacer (post (70)) and the additional second spacer (post (70)) are electrically connected to each other by a bonding process including soldering or sintering for electric connection between the first substrate (2) and the second substrate (1). Id. ¶ 72.
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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhan, and further in view of Malhan Figure 23, Figures 26-28, or 31.
PNG
media_image7.png
418
605
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
397
524
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
378
553
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
380
550
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
354
646
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Malhan Figures 1-7, 13A, and 13B mention briefly that the device is a “double-side cooled power electronic”. Malhan specification ¶ 61. Malhan Figure 23, 26-28, or 31, provide details as to the double-side cooled power device. Using Malhan Figure 23 has an example, Malhan discloses a cooling layer (lower heat exchange body (80)) connected to a cooler and disposed on each of a second surface of the first substrate (2) opposite to the first surface of the first substrate (2) and a second surface of the second substrate (1) opposite to the first surface of the second substrate (1). Id. ¶¶ 82-87. See also id. ¶¶ 89 (Malhan Figures 26-28); 94 (Malhan Figure 31). One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Malhan Figures 1-7, 13A, and 13B to include the cooling layer because Malhan states specifically that its device is used with a cooler. Id. ¶ 61.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 12: Malhan Figures 1-7, 13A, and 13B mention briefly that the device is a “double-side cooled power electronic”. Id. ¶ 61. Malhan Figure 23, 26-28, or 31, provide details as to the double-side cooled power device. Using Malhan Figure 23 has an example, Malhan discloses a cooling layer (lower heat exchange body (80)) connected to a cooler and disposed on each of a second surface of the first substrate (2) opposite to the first surface of the first substrate (2) and a second surface of the second substrate (1) opposite to the first surface of the second substrate (10). Id. ¶¶ 82-87. See also id. ¶¶ 89 (Malhan Figures 26-28); 94 (Malhan Figure 31). One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Malhan Figures 1-7, 13A, and 13B to include the cooling layer because Malhan states specifically that its device is used with a cooler. Id. ¶ 61.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/137,595 (reference application) [hereinafter “the ’595 application”]. (This rejection used the application’s publication, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0088009, for citation.) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 of the ’595 application discloses a power module for a vehicle (line 1), the power module comprising (lines 1-2): a first substrate including a first metal circuit disposed on a first surface of the first substrate, and a first spacer extending from the first metal circuit in a first direction (lines 3-5); a second substrate spaced from and facing the first substrate of the first substrate in a second direction, and including a second metal circuit disposed on a first surface of the second substrate facing the first surface of the first substrate, and a second spacer extending from the second metal circuit in the second direction (lines 6-11); and a semiconductor chip disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (lines 12-13), wherein the first spacer and the second spacer are extended toward each other (lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 12: Claim 1 of the ’595 application discloses a power module for a vehicle (line 1), the power module comprising (lines 1-2): a first substrate including: a first metal circuit disposed on a first surface of the first substrate; and a first spacer extending from the first metal circuit in a first direction (lines 3-5); a second substrate spaced from and facing the first substrate of the first substrate in a second direction, and including: a second metal circuit disposed on a first surface of the second substrate facing the first surface of the first substrate (lines 6-9); a second spacer extending from the second metal circuit in the second direction (lines 10-11); and an additional second spacer extending from the second metal circuit in the second direction (lines 17-19); a semiconductor chip disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (lines 12-13), wherein the first spacer and the additional second spacer are extended toward each other (lines 15-16).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of the ’595 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Claim 12 of the ’595 application, which depends from claim 1 of the ’595 application, discloses wherein the first spacer and the second spacer are extended from the first metal circuit and the second metal circuit, respectively by printing and curing a conductive paste through a screen or by curing a conductive molten material (lines 1-5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of the ’595 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 8 of the ’595 application, which depends from claim 1 of the ’595 application, discloses a cooling layer connected to a cooler and disposed on each of a second surface of the first substrate opposite to the first surface of the first substrate and a second surface of the second substrate opposite to the first surface of the second substrate (lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 12: Claim 8 of the ’595 application, which depends from claim 1 of the ’595 application, discloses a cooling layer connected to a cooler and disposed on each of a second surface of the first substrate opposite to the first surface of the first substrate and a second surface of the second substrate opposite to the first surface of the second substrate (lines 1-6).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of the ’595 application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1: Claim 10 of the ’595 application, which depends from claim 1 of the ’595 application, discloses a power lead disposed between the first metal circuit and the second metal circuit (lines 1-3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While the primary reference, Malhan, discloses numerous aspects of applicants’ invention, Malhan also specifically states that its invention is directed to avoid the use of wire bonding. Malhan specification ¶¶ 113-115. Thus, prior art which may use wire bonding is unsuitable for use in Malhan. For these reasons, dependent claims directed to wire bonds and wire bonding are allowable.
As for the glass frit and spacer requirement, glass frit is commonly used in support arrangements, for example, a sealant at the periphery of a display device. However, the prior art does not disclose the use of glass frit within a spacer in the context of devices like those in applicants’ disclosure. For these reasons, dependent claims directed to the use of glass frit in spacers are allowable.
With regard to claim 4: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the first spacer and the second spacer include glass frit in internal portions thereof except end portions thereof”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a signal lead connected to a first surface of the semiconductor chip by wire bonding”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 9: The claim has been found allowable due to its dependency from claim 8 above.
With regard to claim 14: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “the first spacer, the second spacer and the additional second spacer include glass frit in internal portions thereof except end portions thereof”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 16: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “a signal lead connected to a first surface of the semiconductor chip by wire bonding, wherein the second metal circuit has a […] first thickness, and the second spacer has a second thickness thicker than the first thickness based on a height of the wire bonding connected to the semiconductor chip”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897