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 .
Response to Arguments made in Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the specification Objection and the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to the specification changing “sealing layer” to “sealing material” fixes the issue raised. Also, the amendment to claim 1 changing “exposed” to “protrudes” eliminates all questions raised about definitiveness. The specification Objection and the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment added that the inorganic filler is particles which is not disclosed in the cited art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Hagashi (US 20210366796 A1) in view of Tomoyuki (JP 2011171438 A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by United States Patent Application Publication by Higashi (US 20210366796 A1; Higashi), in view of Japanese patent document by Tomoyuki et al. (JP 2011171438 A; Tomoyuki).
Regarding claim 1, Higashi discloses a semiconductor device (10) comprising:
a casing (16) comprising an inorganic filler in a matrix comprising polyphenylene sulfide (Para. 35, “Examples of such resins include polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin, polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) resin, and polyamide (PA) resin”);
a semiconductor element (13a/b) mounted on a laminated substrate (12); and
a sealing material (21) sealing the semiconductor element (Fig. 1, Where sealing member 21 seals semiconductor elements 13a/b),
However, Higashi fails to disclose wherein particles of the inorganic filler protrude from the matrix and are exposed on a surface of the casing facing the sealing material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomoyuki discloses a semiconductor device (5) that is sealed by sealing material (sealing resin – 8), with a semiconductor element (light emitting diode – 5), a case (package – 4) which is made of inorganic filler (Bottom of Page of Provided Machine translation, Where the fillers 6a and 6b contain glass fibers). Furthermore, Tomoyuki discloses where the particles of organic filler protrude from the matrix (Third to last Paragraph on Page 2 of provided translation, “fillers 6a and 6b exposed on the inner surface of the sealing portion 4a”, And Fig. 2 where package 4 and sealing resin 8 are exposed to the inner surface or the sealing portion 4a).
In view of the disclosure of Tomoyuki, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Tomoyuki to Higashi at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate particles of inorganic fillers protruding from the matrix that are exposed on the surface of the casing facing the sealing material. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages exposing the inorganic filler can improve adhesion between the filler and the sealing resin (Tomoyuki: Bottom of Page 2 on provided translation).
Regarding claim 2, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a content of the inorganic filler based on a total mass of the casing is 40 to 70% by mass, and an exposed area percentage of the particles of the inorganic filler is 10 to 60% (Tomoyuki: Middle of page 3 of provided translation, paragraph starting “The fillers 6a and 6b are preferably”).
Regarding claim 3, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, and further wherein the inorganic filler is a fibrous inorganic filler (Higashi: Para. 26)
Regarding claim 4, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic filler is selected from a metal oxide or a metal nitride (Higashi: Para. 26)
Regarding claim 5, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the sealing material comprises a thermosetting resin selected from an epoxy resin, a maleimide resin, a cyanate resin, and an oxazine resin (Higashi: Para. 39)
Regarding claim 7, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic filler exposed is in contact with the sealing material (Tomoyuki: Fig. 2, showing the inorganic fillers 6a in contact with the sealing material)
Regarding claim 8, Higashi and Tomoyuki discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a silane coupling agent layer (Tomoyuki: Bottom of Page 3 of provided translation, Examples of the coupling agent include silane) is formed on the surface of the casing facing the sealing material (Tomoyuki: Middle of page 4 of provided translation, “First, the fillers 6a and 6b are treated with a coupling agent that reacts with the sealing resin 8, and the fillers 6a and 6b treated with the coupling agent and the base resin 6c are kneaded to obtain the package resin 6. Of the fillers 6a and 6b constituting the package resin 6, only the fibrous or needle-like filler 6a or only the powdery filler 6b may be treated with a coupling agent that reacts with the sealing resin 8”).
Regarding claim 9, Higashi and Tomoyuki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 8, wherein the silane coupling agent layer is in contact with the sealing material (Tomoyuki: Middle of page 4 of provided translation, paragraph starting “First, the fillers”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, while Tomoyuki does disclose that adhesion is increased because of how the exposed inorganic filler particles are used as means to more or less grab the case thought a coupling agent. There is no mention of etching the case in order to promote more adhesion, furthermore, while it is a common practice to etch surfaces in order to promote adhesion, in the instant application, the adhesion is being improved through the use of inorganic fibers extending from the surface. So, using a different method such as etching, would be superfluous in this context.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DANIEL J HIBBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights