DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore elements, ‘heat dissipation member’ in a plan view in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1.
…
wherein, in a plan view against a surface of the substrate, on which the terminal portion is provided, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate with the first wiring board interposed therebetween, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the drive circuit with the first wiring board interposed therebetween.
There are only two plan views fig. 1A and fig. 3A. None of these two plan views show heat dissipation member. The heat dissipation member (600, 610) is shown in cross-sectional views in fig. 4-9.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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).
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) on which a functional element (fig. 3) is disposed, and a peripheral area (NDA, fig. 1A-1B) 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); and
a drive circuit chip (DC) having a drive circuit, and connected to the first wiring board (FPCB), and
((a heat dissipation member installed 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 against a surface of the substrate, on which the terminal portion is provided, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate with the first wiring board interposed therebetween, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the drive circuit with the first wiring board interposed therebetween)).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Kang‘893 is silent upon the provision of wherein
a heat dissipation member installed 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 against a surface of the substrate, on which the terminal portion is provided, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the substrate with the first wiring board interposed therebetween, and
wherein, in the plan view, the heat dissipation member is overlapped with the drive circuit with the first wiring board interposed therebetween.
However, placing heat dissipation member on the surface of a circuit board/substrate is conventional in the semiconductor field. Out of numerous available prior arts, Park‘276 teaches a semiconductor device (fig. 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 wherein a semiconductor device (310) is placed.
PNG
media_image2.png
318
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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) installed on a surface of the first wiring board (fig. 1B, Kang‘893),
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),
wherein, in a plan view (fig. 1B, Kang‘893) against a surface of the substrate (100), on which the terminal portion is provided, the heat dissipation member (placed on FPCB) is overlapped with the substrate (100) with the first wiring board (FPCB) interposed therebetween, and
wherein, in the plan view (fig. 1B, Kang‘893), the heat dissipation member (placed on FPCB) is overlapped with the drive circuit (DC) with the first wiring board (FPCB) interposed therebetween.
Note: Park‘276 in above rejection can be replaced by any of the below prior arts:
Zheng; Long US 20180292078 A1
KO; Po-Wen et al. US 20150029674 A1
OH; Nam Seok US 20140133128 A1
Lee; Chung Hoon US 20130307016 A1
Mok; Thye Linn et al. US 7262438 B2
LEE; Tae Soo et al. US 20100020499 A1
PARK TAE BONG et al. KR 20100123276 A
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”.
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 the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being as used in the current rejection.
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 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.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266. 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