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 .
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second parallel connection structure" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not positively claimed that there is a second parallel structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the third parallel connection structure" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not positively claimed that there is a third parallel structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the IGBT" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the IGBT and the diode device in each" in line 21. This limitation is vague. Is the applicant claiming a specific IGBT and then each diode device in each structure, or is the applicant trying to claim each IGBT in each structure AND each diode in each structure?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reverse conducting IGBT" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second parallel connection structure" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not positively claimed a second parallel structure.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the third parallel connection structure" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not positively claimed a second parallel structure.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the IGBT" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the IGBT and the diode device in each" in line 21. This limitation is vague. Is the applicant claiming a specific IGBT and then each diode device in each structure, or is the applicant trying to claim each IGBT in each structure AND each diode in each structure?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the reverse conducting IGBT" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one?
Claims 3-9 inherit the same through dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each of the plurality of the parallel connection structures include the reverse conducting IGBT". This is vague, confusing and indefinite. If this is true, then how can there possibly be non-reverse conducting IGBT and diode devices formed on separate chips as claimed in claim 1??
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bijlendga (US 6480403) in view of Eckel (US 20140362628 – previously cited).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7; Bijlenga disclose a semiconductor module (figure 3) comprising: a converter circuit configured to generate an alternating-current (AC) voltage (16) from a direct-current (DC) voltage input (5, 6), by receiving a first potential that is positive (5), a second potential that is negative,(6) and a third potential (9) lower than the first potential and higher than the second potential, wherein the converter circuit includes a plurality of parallel connection structures (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 20/22, 21/23) each parallel connection structure including an insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBT) and a diode device connected in parallel, and the plurality of parallel connection structures includes: first, [second, third] and fourth parallel connection structures connected in series (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4), with two ends of the serially-connected first, [second, third] and fourth parallel connection structures respectively connected to the first potential (5) and the second potential (6), a fifth parallel (20/22) connection structure that is connected between the third potential (9) and a connection between the first and second parallel connection structures (1, 2), and a sixth parallel (21/23) connection structure that is connected between the third potential and a connection between the third and fourth parallel connection structures (3, 4).
However, Bijlenga does not disclose whether at least two of the parallel connection structures each includes a reverse conducting IGBT that is switched with a cycle shorter than that of the AC voltage, or parallel connection structures including the reverse conducting IGBT are formed on a same chip, and parallel connection structures not including the reverse conducting IGBT are formed on separate chips.
Eckel teaches four parallel connection structures that are connected in series with each having IGBT switches and parallel diodes therewith. Wherein at least two of the parallel connection structures each includes a reverse conducting IGBT that is switched with a cycle shorter than that of the AC voltage (see figure 9 and para [0010]) so that, compared to non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches, reverse conductive power semiconductor switches have the advantage that a lower forward voltage drops across them during normal operation, so losses are reduced compared with non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches. Also, Eckel teaches the reverse conducting IGBT are formed on a same chip (figure 4), and the parallel connection structures not including the reverse conducting IGBT can be formed on separate chips (figure 3) in order to take advantage of the reverse conductive IGBT having lower passage voltage than a correspondingly designed power semiconductor switch without reverse conductivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Bijlenga to include at least two of the parallel connection structures each includes a reverse conducting IGBT that is switched with a cycle shorter than that of the AC voltage; in order to take advantage of the lower forward voltage drops across them during normal operation, so losses are reduced; and it would have been obvious to include parallel connection structures including the reverse conducting IGBT being are formed on a same chip, and parallel connection structures not including the reverse conducting IGBT are formed on separate chips in order to take advantage of the reverse conductive IGBT having lower passage voltage than a correspondingly designed power semiconductor switch without reverse conductivity as taught by Eckel.
Claim 3; figure 7 of Eckel teach that the RC IGBT and the non iGBT can be switched around. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Bijlenga to include providing the first and fourth structure as the RC IGBT in order to take advantage of the lower forward voltage drops across them during normal operation.
Claim 5; If all of the switches are RC IGBTs then there can be no non RC IGBTs yet claim 1 claims non RC IGBTs on separate chips. Impossible.
Claims 8 and 9; Bijlenga discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claims 1 and 2 supra, except for the fifth and sixth parallel connection structures including the reverse conducting IGBT.
Eckel teaches replacing non RC IGBTs with reverse conducting IGBTs since compared to non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches, reverse conductive power semiconductor switches have the advantage that a lower forward voltage drops across them during normal operation, so losses are reduced compared with non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Bijlenga to include the fifth and sixth parallel connection structures including the reverse conducting IGBT, since compared to non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches, reverse conductive power semiconductor switches have the advantage that a lower forward voltage drops across them during normal operation, so losses are reduced compared with non-reverse conductive power semiconductor switches as taught by Eckel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230006571 Masuda teaches a semiconductor device with RC IGBT.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 2/23/2026