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 .
Continuity Information
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/078279, filed 13 OCT 2021.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in EP on 7 DEC 2020. It is noted that applicants have filed a certified copy of said application as required by U.S.C 119, which papers have been placed of record in the file. See 6 JUN 2023 submission.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 JUN 2023 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission follows provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claim language includes a typographical error:
claim 18, line 2, replace “material in” with “material is in”;
claim 24, line 3, replace “bonding connector” with “bond connector”;
claim 25, line 1, replace “bonding connector” with “bond connector”;
claim 26, line 1, replace “bonding connector” with “bond connector”; and
claim 27, line 1, replace “comprising a” with “comprising the”.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMANO et al. (US 20190287964; below, “YAMANO” – 6 JUN 2023 IDS noted reference).
RE 14, YAMANO, in FIG. 32 and related text, [0081], [0160]-[0164], discloses a semiconductor module (100), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
800
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a semiconductor element (70);
a substrate (10 or 7); and
a bond connector (2a, 2b – FIG 32) designed as a gate resistor, shunt, resistor in an RC filter or fuse, said bond connector (2a, 2b) including a core ([0081]) made of a first metal material (iron/iron alloy) and a jacket ([0081]) which is designed to envelope the core and made from a second metal material (aluminum/aluminum alloy) that is different from the first metal material (iron/iron alloy), with the first metal material (iron/iron alloy) having an electrical conductivity (1.45 to10.4 MS/m) which is lower than an electrical conductivity (35 MS/m) of the second metal material (aluminum/aluminum alloy),
wherein at least one of the semiconductor element (70) and the substrate (10 or 7) is connected to the bond connector (2a, 2b).
Thus, YAMANO anticipates this claim.
RE 15, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the jacket is designed to entirely envelop the core ([0081]).
RE 16, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the electrical conductivity of the first metal material (iron/iron alloy, e.g., iron 304) is at most 10% of the electrical conductivity of the second metal material (aluminum/aluminum alloy).
RE 17, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the electrical conductivity of the first metal material (iron/iron alloy, e.g., iron 304) is at most 5% of the electrical conductivity of the second metal material (aluminum/aluminum alloy).
RE 18, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the electrical conductivity of the first metal material (iron/iron alloy) in a range of from 0.5 MS/m to 20 MS/m.
RE 19, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the electrical conductivity of the first metal material (iron/iron alloy) is in a range of from 0.5 MS/m to 4 MS/m.
RE 20, YAMANO discloses the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the first metal material (iron/iron alloy, e.g., iron alloy 875) has a resistance having a temperature coefficient of ±0.1·10−3/K−1 in a range of from −40° C. to 200° C.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20160133353; below, “Liu”).
RE 28, Liu, in FIGS. 4-6 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0010] to [0058], claims 1-16, discloses a bonding connector for use as a gate resistor, shunt, resistor in an RC filter or fuse in a semiconductor module (Regarding the underlined portion of claim 28, the Office notes that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation, Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ f .2d 1647(1987), see MPEP 2114 II.), said bonding connector comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
872
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a core (Annotated FIG. 4) made of a first metal material (aluminum, [0046]); and
a jacket (Annotated FIG. 4) which is designed to envelope the core and made from a second metal material (copper, [0046]) that is different from the first metal material, with the first metal material having an electrical conductivity (aluminum: 3.5 to 4.0 x 10⁷ S/m) which is lower than an electrical conductivity (copper: 5.9 x 10⁷ S/m) of
the second metal material.
Thus, Liu anticipates this claim.
RE 29, Liu discloses the bonding connector of claim 28, wherein the jacket is designed to entirely envelop the core (Annotated FIG. 4).
RE 30, Liu, in FIGS. 4-6 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0010] to [0058], claims 1-16, discloses a bonding connector for measuring current or determining temperature in a semiconductor module (Regarding the underlined portion of claim 30, see comments addressing the underlined portion of claim 28.), said bonding connector comprising:
a core (Annotated FIG. 4) made of a first metal material (aluminum, [0046]); and
a jacket (Annotated FIG. 4) which is designed to envelope the core and made from a second metal material (copper, [0046]) that is different from the first metal material, with the first metal material having an electrical conductivity (aluminum: 3.5 to 4.0 x 10⁷ S/m) which is lower than an electrical conductivity of the second metal material (copper: 5.9 x 10⁷ S/m).
Thus, Liu anticipates this claim.
RE 31, Liu discloses the bonding connector of claim 30, wherein the jacket is designed to entirely envelop the core.
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.
RE 24, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein a surface area of the core represents, in terms of proportion, at least 90% of a cross-sectional surface area of the bonding [sic] connector. However, the claim range of at least 90% of a cross-sectional surface area of the bonding [sic] connector is considered to be an obvious matter of finding an optimum workable range for some chosen design requirement utilizing the disclosure of YAMANO. Furthermore it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Finally, any difference in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with evidence from and/or in view of Krichtafovitch et al. (US 20190013224; below, “Krichtavovitch”). 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 21, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the core contains Zeranin, Manganin, Constantan or Isaohm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a core containing Zeranin, Manganin, Constantan or Isaohm; since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see Krichtafovitch’s [0098]. Moreover, it would have been obvious because Krichtafovitch shows this to be a functionally equivalent alternate expedient.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with evidence from and/or in view of Elgaard et al. (US 20170296260; below, “Elgaard”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 22, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the core includes a PTC thermistor.
Elgaard teaches a core includes a PTC thermistor (e.g., [0051]).
YAMANO and Elgaard 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 YAMANO as taught by Elgaard because: 1. a device with a component having highly effective, self-regulating protection is achieved; 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).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with
evidence from and/or in view of Tanioka et al. (US 20100164125; below, “Tanioka”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 23, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the first metal material (iron/iron alloy) has a resistance with a substantially linear temperature profile.
Tanioka teaches a metal material (Kanthal: iron-chromium-aluminum alloys) having a resistance with a substantially linear temperature profile (e.g., [0035]).
YAMANO and Tanioka 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 YAMANO as taught by Tanioka because: 1. high-temperature resistance and excellent oxidation resistance are achieved; 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).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with evidence from and/or in view of Komabayashi et al. (JP 5-41544; below, “Komabayashi”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 25, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, wherein the bonding [sic] connector is structured to measure a current.
Komabayashi teaches a bonding [sic] connector being structured to measure a
current ([0005]-[0025], claims 1-3.
YAMANO and Komabayashi 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 YAMANO as taught by Komabayashi because: 1. a device with good current sensitivity results; 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).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with evidence from and/or in view of BAUER et al. (US 20150380353; below, “BAUER”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 26, YAMANO is silent regarding the semiconductor module (100) of claim 14, the bonding [sic] connector is structured to determine a temperature.
BAUER teaches a bonding [sic] connector being structured to determine a temperature (e.g., [0028]-[0042], claim 13).
YAMANO and BAUER 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 YAMANO as taught by BAUER because: 1. the modification provides a low-cost bonding [sic] connector with good stability; 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).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMANO with evidence from and/or in view of NAKASHIMA (US 20220311431; below, “NAKASHIMA”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 27, YAMANO is silent regarding a power converter, comprising a semiconductor module (100) as set forth in claim 14.
NAKASHIMA, in FIG. 30 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0166] to [0177], teaches a power converter (200), comprising a semiconductor module (100).
YAMANO and NAKASHIMA 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 YAMANO as taught by NAKASHIMA because: 1. a power converter having high efficiency and able to reduce energy waste and costs; 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).
Claims 14-31 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, IWAMOTO (US 20220069816), is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. IWAMOTO does not teach, inter alia, a bond connector (2 – FIG 1) designed as a gate resistor, shunt, resistor in an RC filter or fuse, said bond connector (2) including a core (4) made of a first metal material and a jacket (6) which is designed to envelope the core (4) and made from a second metal material that is different from the first metal material, with the first metal material having an electrical conductivity which is lower than an electrical conductivity of the second metal material, wherein at least one of the semiconductor element (10 – FIG 2) and the substrate (12) is connected to the bond connector (2).
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