DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation " wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area”, cited in claim 1 is a negative limitation that lacks sufficient support in the specification as originally filed.
Specifically, the MPEP states “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement” (MPEP §2173.05(i)). Applicant’s fig. 1A shows the heat dissipation member (600) is not overlapped with the effective element area (AA), but nowhere in the specification, this is explicitly mentioned that the heat dissipation member (600) is not placed overlapping with the effective element area (AA). This absence of the heat dissipation member in the effective element area (AA) in fig. 1A without explicit written description, does not provide sufficient support for the claimed scope of an open-ended device that may comprise any further elements (fig. 6 includes heat dissipation member (620) overlapping the effective element area (AA)). This is considered an attempt to define what Applicant did not invent in contrast to what Applicant invented.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also rejected as they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
[Page 11] of REMARKS,
The Office Action also points to a number of other prior art references,¹ which allegedly demonstrate similar use of the heat dissipation member. Applicant, however, respectfully submits that neither Kang nor these other prior art documents discloses or suggests disposing the heat dissipation member such that, in the plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, it is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board, but is not overlapped with the effective element area.
Examiner’s reply:
The office disagrees.
The instant limitations of claim 1 are taught by a combination of KANG et al. (US 20200058893 A1) and Park et al. (KR 20100123276 A) as below:
wherein, in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area.
Regarding “wherein, in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board”, Park et al. teach a heat dissipation member (500/510, fig. 7) installed on a surface of a FPCB (400/471,472,481,482) opposite to the surface of the heat dissipation member (400) wherein a semiconductor device (310) is placed. The heat dissipation member (510) covers the surface of the FPCB (400) and doesn’t extend beyond the FPCB (400). Modifying the fig. 1A-1B of Kang et al. by placing a heat dissipation member on the surface of ‘FPCB’ opposite to the surface containing element ‘DC’, the limitations wherein, the heat dissipation member is overlapped (partially) with the substrate (100) and the first wiring board (FPCB)”. The only difference is, the claim limitation mentions plan view whereas prior arts show perspective views and cross-sectional views.
PNG
media_image1.png
933
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
878
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly regarding, “wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area”, referring to fig. 1A-1B of KANG et al., FPCB is not overlapped with the effective element area (DA) and as according to fig. 5, 7, of Park et al., heat dissipation member (510) is only applied to the surface of the FPCB (400), the combination teaches that the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area. Again, the only difference is, the claim limitation mentions plan view whereas prior arts show perspective views and cross-sectional views.
However, cross-sectional views are derived from plan views and the presence of any element in cross-sectional views confirms the presence of that element in the plan view (may not be at the same level). Also, the vertical relative position is also well explained by the cross-sectional views. KANG et al. also provides perspective views in fig. 1A, which shows the relative location in the horizontal plane which is very close to the plan view. Park et al. shows a plan view fig. 5 along with the cross-sectional view fig. 7 and from these two views, this is clear that the heat dissipation member doesn’t extend beyond the FPCB 400.
The office believes that the features cited in claim 1 is taught by the combination of KANG et al. and Park et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al. (US 20200058893 A1, hereinafter Kang’893) of record in view of Park et al. (KR 20100123276 A, hereinafter Park’276) of record.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kang’893 teaches, “A semiconductor device (fig. 1-11; ¶¶ [0050] – [0137]), comprising:
a substrate (100, fig. 1A-1B) having an effective element area (DA) disposed on a first surface (top surface) of the substrate (100), and a peripheral area (NDA) that surrounds the effective element area (DA),
the substrate (100) having a terminal portion (ACF) in at least a portion of the peripheral area (NDA);
a first wiring board (FPCB) connected to the substrate (100) via the terminal portion (ACF) of the substrate (100);
a drive circuit chip (DC) comprising a drive circuit, and connected to the first wiring board (FPCB); and
((a heat dissipation member disposed on a surface of the first wiring board,
wherein a thermal conductivity of the first wiring board is equal to or higher than a thermal conductivity of the substrate and of the drive circuit chip,
wherein, in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area))”.
But Kang’893 is silent upon the provision of wherein
a heat dissipation member disposed on a surface of the first wiring board,
wherein a thermal conductivity of the first wiring board is equal to or higher than a thermal conductivity of the substrate and of the drive circuit chip,
wherein, in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area.
However, Park’276 teaches a semiconductor device (figs. 5, 7), wherein a heat dissipation member (500/510) installed on a surface of a FPCB (400) opposite to the surface of the heat dissipation member (510) wherein a semiconductor device (310) is placed.
Modifying fig. 1B of Kang’893 by placing a heat dissipation member on the surface of ‘FPCB’ opposite to the surface containing element ‘DC’, the below limitations met:
a heat dissipation member (500/510, fig. 7, Park’276) disposed on a surface of the first wiring board (400, FPCB, fig. 5),
wherein a thermal conductivity of the first wiring board (FPCB 400 is made of metal, Park’276) is equal to or higher than a thermal conductivity of the substrate (100, fig. 3; ¶¶ [0076] – [0080] is made of glass/plastic, insulation materials, Kang’893) and of the drive circuit chip (comprising silicon and insulating layers).
Regarding “wherein, in a plan view perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate and the first wiring board”, Park et al. teach a heat dissipation member (500/510, fig. 7) installed on a surface of a FPCB (400/471,472,481,482) opposite to the surface of the heat dissipation member (400) wherein a semiconductor device (310) is placed. The heat dissipation member (510) covers the surface of the FPCB (400) and doesn’t extend beyond the FPCB (400). Modifying the fig. 1A-1B of Kang et al. by placing a heat dissipation member on the surface of ‘FPCB’ opposite to the surface containing element ‘DC’, the limitations wherein, the heat dissipation member is overlapped (partially) with the substrate (100) and the first wiring board (FPCB)”. The only difference is, the claim limitation mentions plan view whereas prior arts show perspective views and cross-sectional views.
Similarly regarding, “wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area”, referring to fig. 1A-1B of KANG et al., FPCB is not overlapped with the effective element area (DA) and as according to fig. 5, 7, of Park et al., heat dissipation member (510) is only applied to the surface of the FPCB (400), the combination teaches that the heat dissipation member is not overlapped with the effective element area. Again, the only difference is, the claim limitation mentions plan view whereas prior arts show perspective views and cross-sectional views.
However, cross-sectional views are derived from plan views and the presence of any element in cross-sectional views confirms the presence of that element in the plan view (may not be at the same level). Also, the vertical relative position is also well explained by the cross-sectional views. KANG et al. also provides perspective views in fig. 1A, which shows the relative location in the horizontal plane which is very close to the plan view. Park et al. shows a plan view fig. 5 along with the cross-sectional view fig. 7 and from these two views, this is clear that the heat dissipation member doesn’t extend beyond the FPCB 400.
Kang’893 and Park’276 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kang’893 with the features of Park’276 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang’893 and Park’276 to include heat dissipation member according to the teachings of Park’276 with a general motivation of dissipating heat from the surface of the wiring board to ensure smooth and uninterrupted operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 1, comprising: a second wiring board (MPCB, fig. 1B, Kang’893) connected to the first wiring board (FPCB), wherein the substrate (100), the drive circuit chip (DC) and the second wiring board (MPCB) are disposed so that surfaces thereof joined to the first wiring board (FPCB) is a common plane, and are connected to each other by the first wiring board (FPCB)”.
Regarding claim 4, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first wiring board (Park’276) is formed of a metallic material including gold, silver, copper or aluminum, a ceramic material including aluminum nitride or silicon nitride, or silicon”.
Regarding claim 5, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation member (500, Park’276) has no electrode formed thereon”.
Regarding claim 6, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the heat dissipation member (500, Park’276) has no electrode formed thereon”.
Regarding claim 7, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation member (500, Park’276) has no terminal portion formed thereon”.
Regarding claim 12, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “A display device, comprising: a display unit (‘display device DD’, fig. 1A; ¶ [0051], Kang’893) having the semiconductor device of claim 1; and a control circuit (¶ [0058]) that controls the display unit”.
Regarding claim 16, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, “16. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member (510) is overlapped with the drive circuit (310, fig. 7, Park’276).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang’893 modified with Park’276 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of SATO HIDEKAZU (JP 2010010693 A, hereinafter Sato‘693) of record.
Regarding claim 3, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Kang’893 modified with Park’276 further teaches, wherein the first wiring board (FPCB) (FPCB, fig. 1B, Kang’893) is joined to the substrate (100) ((and the drive circuit chip by thermocompression joining)) using an anisotropic conductive film (¶ [0061]), by solder joining or by ultrasonic joining.
But Kang’893 modified with Park’276 is silent upon the provision of wherein the first wiring board is joined to the drive circuit chip using an anisotropic conductive film, by solder joining or by ultrasonic joining.
However, Sato‘693 teaches a similar device (fig. 1), wherein an wiring board (2) is joined to the drive circuit chip (3) using an anisotropic conductive film (4), by solder joining or by ultrasonic joining.
Kang’893, Park’276 and Sato‘693 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kang’893 and Park’276 with the features of Sato‘693 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang’893, Park’276 and Sato‘693 to attach the drive circuit chip to the wiring board using ACF according to the teachings of Sato‘693 with a general motivation of exploiting the advantages of high reliability and flexibility, allowing connections to different materials and surfaces, and is an environmentally friendly, lead-free option.
The limitataion “joined..by thermocompression joining” is directed towards the process of attaching two elements. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 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 produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "joined..by thermocompression joining" only requires two elements are attached, which does not distinguish the invention from Kang’893, Park’276 and Sato‘693, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang’893 modified with Park’276 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 5592199 A, hereinafter Kawaguchi‘199) of record.
Regarding claim 8, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Kang’893 modified with Park’276 is silent upon the provision of wherein the semiconductor device of claim 1, comprising: at least one of a reinforcing member disposed between the substrate and the drive circuit chip, and a reinforcing member provided so as to fill a space between the substrate, the first wiring board and the drive circuit chip.
However, Kawaguchi‘199 teaches a similar display panel structure, comprising: at least one of a reinforcing member (6, fig. 6) disposed between the substrate (2) and the drive circuit chip (5), and a reinforcing member (6) provided so as to fill a space between the substrate (2), the first wiring board (4) and the drive circuit chip (5)”.
Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Kawaguchi‘199 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kang’893 modified with Park’276 with the features of Kawaguchi‘199 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Kawaguchi‘199 to include reinforcing materials according to the teachings of Kawaguchi‘199 with a motivation of protecting the components from moisture as described by Kawaguchi‘199 in column 19, lines 60-67 and column 20, lines 1-14.
Regarding claim 9, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Kawaguchi‘199 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 1, comprising:
a second wiring board (MPCB, fig. 1A-1B, Kang’893) connected to the first wiring board (FPCB) or the drive circuit chip (DC); and
at least either one of a reinforcing member (PM, fig. 6, Kang’893) disposed between the substrate (100) and the drive circuit chip (driving chip placed on FPCB), or a reinforcing member provided so as to fill a space between the substrate, the first wiring board, the drive circuit chip and the second wiring board”.
Regarding claim 10, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Kawaguchi‘199 further teaches, “The semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein the reinforcing member (6, Kawaguchi‘199) is formed by using a thermal insulation material (Silicone resin)”.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang’893 modified with Park’276 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Nakata (US 20210167133 A1, hereinafter Nakata‘133).
Regarding claim 13, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Kang’893 modified with Park’276 is silent upon the provision of wherein “A photoelectric conversion device, comprising: an optical member; an imaging element that receives light passing through the optical member; and a display unit that displays an image captured by the imaging element, wherein the display unit has the semiconductor device of claim 1”.
However, Nakata‘133 teaches, an imaging device (224 — fig. 7B — [0092] — “imaging apparatus 224”), comprising: an optical member (222 — Fig. 7A — [0093] — “optical member 222”); an imaging element ([0093] — “the display apparatus 212 with the imaging element may be used as a display imaging apparatus”) that receives light passing through the optical unit (222); and a display unit (226 — Fig. 7B — [0092] — “display 226”) that displays an image captured by the imaging element (IE), wherein the display unit (226) has the semiconductor device ((0091] — “the display apparatus using the semiconductor device is used as a viewfinder of an imaging apparatus, such as a camera’) of claim 1”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the imaging device with the semiconductor device as taught by Nakata‘133 into Kang’893 modified with Park’276.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Nakata‘133 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of an imaging device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 14, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Nakata‘133 further teaches, “An electronic device (1200 — Fig. 10B — [0120] — “electronic device 1200”), comprising: a display unit (1201 — Fig. 10B — [0120] — “display unit 1201”) having the semiconductor device ((0120] — “The display unit 1201 can include the semiconductor device according to the first or second exemplary embodiment’) of claim 1; a housing (1200 — Fig. 10B — [0120] — “housing 1203”) in which the display unit (1201) is provided; and a communication unit (1200 — Fig. 10B — [0120] — “housing 1203 may include a circuit, a printed circuit board including the circuit, a battery, and a communication unit’), provided in the housing (1203), and that communicates with the exterior (1200 illustrator a cell phone which is used to communicate with the exterior)”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang’893 modified with Park’276 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Perregaux et al. (US 6768565 B1, hereinafter Perregaux‘565).
Regarding claim 15, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Kang’893 modified with Park’276 is silent upon the provision of “An image forming apparatus, comprising: a light source having the semiconductor device of claim 1; a developing unit irradiated by the light source, and in which toner is caused to adhere to an electrostatic latent image formed on the surface of a photosensitive member; and a transfer device that transfers, to a recording medium, an image developed by the developing unit”.
However, Perregaux‘565 teaches an image forming apparatus (3:37-38] —“a digital imaging system for generating an image”), comprising: a light source (230, fig. 10 — [10:11-14] —“ROS 230 may employ a photosensitive array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged to illuminate the charged portion of photoconductive belt 210 on a raster-by-raster basis”) having the semiconductor device of claim 1 ([ 3:37-46]—“a plurality of semiconductor chips”); a developing unit (C — fig. 10 — [10:17] — “development station, C”) irradiated by the light source (230), and in which toner is caused to adhere to an electrostatic latent image formed on the surface of a photosensitive member ([10:17-19] —“a development station, C, where toner, in the form of liquid or dry particles, is electrostatically attracted to the latent image using commonly known techniques”); and a transfer device (D — fig. 10 — [10:27-29] — “after the electrostatic latent image is developed, the toner powder image present on belt 210 advances to transfer station D”) that transfers, to a recording medium, an image developed by the developing unit ([10:29-30] — “print sheet 248 is advanced to the transfer station, D”).
Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Perregaux‘565 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kang’893 modified with Park’276 with the features of Perregaux‘565 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Perregaux‘565 to include use the display panel in an image forming apparatus according to the teachings of Perregaux‘565 with a motivation to use the known technique of Perregaux‘565 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of an image forming apparatus. To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang’893 modified with Park’276 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20200303276 A1, hereinafter Hwang’276).
Regarding claim 17, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Kang’893 modified with Park’276 is silent upon the provision of wherein the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising another heat dissipation member, wherein the first wiring board is disposed between the heat dissipation member and the other heat dissipation member.
However, Hwang’276 teaches a similar device (10, fig. 1-2), wherein a heat dissipation member (130, 150) is placed surrounding the chip (120). Modifying the device of figs. 1A-1B by placing similar heat dissipation member surrounding the chip (DC), the limitations, ‘another heat dissipation member (130, 150, fig. 1-2), wherein the first wiring board (FPCB, fig. 1A-1B, ) is disposed between the heat dissipation member (on top surface of FPCB) and the other heat dissipation member (on top surface of DC)’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Hwang’276 to place heat dissipation member on the driver chip according to the teachings of Hwang’276 with a general motivation of dissipating heat generated in the driver chip.
Regarding claim 18, Kang’893 modified with Park’276 and Hwang’276 further teach, “The semiconductor device according to claim 17, wherein the drive circuit chip (DC, fig. 1B, Kang’893 and 120, fig. 2, Hwang’276) is disposed between the heat dissipation member (510, fig. 7, Park’276) and the other heat dissipation member (130, 150, fig. 2, Hwang’276), and wherein the other heat dissipation member (130, 150, fig. 2, Hwang’276) is in contact with the drive circuit chip (DC, fig. 1B, Kang’893 and 120, fig. 2, Hwang’276)”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights