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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filled on 7/13/2023 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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 " a lower end surface " in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is “a lower end surface” of line 20 the same or different then “a lower end surface” of line 9? For the purpose of examination, “a lower end surface” of line 20 will be interpreted as “the lower end surface”.
Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1 and inherit it’s deficiencies.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the support portions" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, defines one or more support portions. If there is only one support portion as defined by claim 2, how are there plural support portions? For the purpose of examination, “support portions” will be interpreted as “the one or more support portions”.
Claims 4-6, 13-15 and 18-20 depend on claim 3 and inherit it’s deficiencies.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "two of the slits or the slots" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, defines one or more slits or one or more slots. If there is only one slit or one or more slot as defined by claim 3, how are there two of the slits or the slots? For the purpose of examination, “two of the slits or the slots” will be interpreted as “wherein the one or more slits or one or more slots comprises two of the slits or the slots”.
Claims 15 and 20 depend on claim 5 and inherit it’s deficiencies.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " a left end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 13 depends, defines “a left end” in line 2. Is “a left end” of claim 13 the same or different than “a left end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a left end” will be interpreted as “the left end”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " a right end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 13 depends, defines “a right end” in line 2. Is “a right end” of claim 13 the same or different than “a right end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a right end” will be interpreted as “the right end”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " a lower end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 13 depends, defines “a lower end” in line 3. Is “a right end” of claim 13 the same or different than “a lower end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a lower end” will be interpreted as “the lower end”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " a left end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 14 depends, defines “a left end” in line 2. Is “a left end” of claim 14 the same or different than “a left end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a left end” will be interpreted as “the left end”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " a right end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 14 depends, defines “a right end” in line 2. Is “a right end” of claim 14 the same or different than “a right end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a right end” will be interpreted as “the right end”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " a lower end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 14 depends, defines “a lower end” in line 3. Is “a right end” of claim 14 the same or different than “a lower end” of claim 4? For the purpose of examination, “a lower end” will be interpreted as “the lower end”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " a left end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, from which claim 15 depends, defines “a left end” in line 2. Is “a left end” of claim 15 the same or different than “a left end” of claim 5? For the purpose of examination, “a left end” will be interpreted as “the left end”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " a right end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, from which claim 15 depends, defines “a right end” in line 2. Is “a right end” of claim 15 the same or different than “a right end” of claim 5? For the purpose of examination, “a right end” will be interpreted as “the right end”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " a lower end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, from which claim 15 depends, defines “a lower end” in line 3. Is “a right end” of claim 15 the same or different than “a lower end” of claim 5? For the purpose of examination, “a lower end” will be interpreted as “the lower end”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " a line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 18 depends, defines “a line” in line 2. Is “a line” of claim 18 the same or different than “a line” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a line” will be interpreted as “the line”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " a plate-shaped portion lower side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 18 depends, defines “a plate-shaped portion lower side” in line 4. Is “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 18 the same or different than “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a plate-shaped portion lower side” will be interpreted as “the plate-shaped portion lower side”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " a line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 18 depends, defines “a line” in line 2. Is “a line” of claim 19 the same or different than “a line” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a line” will be interpreted as “the line”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " a plate-shaped portion lower side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 18 depends, defines “a plate-shaped portion lower side” in line 4. Is “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 19 the same or different than “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a plate-shaped portion lower side” will be interpreted as “the plate-shaped portion lower side”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " a line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 20 depends, defines “a line” in line 2. Is “a line” of claim 20 the same or different than “a line” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a line” will be interpreted as “the line”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " a plate-shaped portion lower side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3, from which claim 18 depends, defines “a plate-shaped portion lower side” in line 4. Is “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 20 the same or different than “a plate-shaped portion lower side” of claim 3? For the purpose of examination, “a plate-shaped portion lower side” will be interpreted as “the plate-shaped portion lower side”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US 2012/0320559 A1) as cited in the IDS of 7/27/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a module(Fig. 1, Fig. 3B) comprising:
a substrate(22) having an upper main surface and a lower main surface arranged in an up-down direction;
a metal member(24a, ¶0046) including a plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) provided on the upper main surface of the substrate(22), the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) having:
a front main surface and a back main surface arranged in a front-back direction when viewed in the up-down direction, and
a lower end surface connected to the front main surface and the back main surface;
a first electronic component(3a, ¶0031) mounted on the upper main surface of the substrate(22) and disposed before the metal member(24a, ¶0046);
a second electronic component(3b, ¶0031) mounted on the upper main surface of the substrate(22) and disposed after the metal member(24a, ¶0046); and
a sealing resin layer(5, ¶0034) provided on the upper main surface of the substrate(22) and covering the metal member(24a, ¶0046), the first electronic component(3a, ¶0031), and the second electronic component(3b, ¶0031), wherein:
a lower end surface of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) includes:
a straight portion(35, ¶0046) extending in a left-right direction; and
one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) extending in a forward direction or a backward direction with respect to the straight portion(35, ¶0046); and
the straight portion(35, ¶0046) and the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) are visually recognized when viewed in an upward direction(Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein
the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) includes:
a plate-shaped main body(35, ¶0046) including the straight portion(35, ¶0046) and having a flat plate shape(¶0046, sheet); and
one or more support portions(36, ¶0046) including the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) and protruding in a forward direction or a backward direction with respect to the plate-shaped main body(35, ¶0046).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein the straight portion(35, ¶0046) and the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) are connected(Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein the substrate(22) includes a mounting electrode(23, ¶0061) located on the upper main surface of the substrate(22), and the straight portion(35, ¶0046) is fixed to the mounting electrode by a conductive bonding material(solder, ¶0061, ¶0064).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 9, wherein the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) protrude in the forward direction with respect to the straight portion(35, ¶0046), and the conductive bonding material(solder, ¶0061, ¶0064) is provided after the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046), or
the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) protrude in the backward direction with respect to the straight portion(35, ¶0046), and the conductive bonding material(solder, ¶0061, ¶0064) is provided before the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 9, further comprising a shield(9, ¶0036) covering an upper surface of the sealing resin layer(5, ¶0034), wherein the metal member(24a, ¶0046) is electrically connected to the shield via the mounting electrode(23, ¶0061).
Regarding claim 12, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein an upper end of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) is located on an upper surface of the sealing resin layer(5, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 2, wherein the straight portion(35, ¶0046) and the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) are connected(Fig. 3b).
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.
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 3-4, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 2012/0320559 A1) as cited in the IDS of 7/27/2023 in view of Takemura et al. (US 2011/0304993 A1) as cited in the IDS of 7/27/2023.
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 2, wherein when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting lower ends of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) in the left-right direction is defined as a plate-shaped portion lower side.
Kimura is not relied on to teach one or more slits or one or more slots extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided between the plate-shaped main body and the support portions.
Takemura teaches a module(Fig. 4a) wherein one or more slits or one or more slots(54, ¶0078) extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided between the plate-shaped main body(51b, ¶0079) and the support portions(52, ¶0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kimura, so that one or more slits or one or more slots extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided between the plate-shaped main body and the support portions, as taught by Takemura, in order to allow a resin material flow between the support portions thus maintaining the fluidity of the insulating resin layer(¶0078).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 3, wherein
a protruding portion(left outermost 36, ¶0046) including a left end or a right end of a lower end of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) among the one or more protruding portions(36, ¶0046) is defined as an end protruding portion(left outermost 36, ¶0046),
a support portion(left outermost 36, ¶0046) including the end protruding portion among the one or more support portions(36, ¶0046) is defined as an end support portion(left outermost 36, ¶0046).
Kimura is not relied on to teach one of the slits or the slots is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the end support portion(left outermost 36, ¶0046).
Takemura teaches a module(Fig. 4a) wherein one of the slits or slots(54, ¶0078) is provided between the plate-shaped main body(51b, ¶0079) and the end support portion(52, ¶0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kimura, so that one of the slits or the slots is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the end support portion, as taught by Takemura, in order to allow a resin material flow between the support portions thus maintaining the fluidity of the insulating resin layer(¶0078).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting a lower end of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) in the left-right direction is defined as a plate-shaped portion lower side.
Kimura is not relied on to teach one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046).
Takemura teaches a module(Fig. 4a) wherein one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches(54, ¶0078) extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion(34, ¶0081). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kimura, so that one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion, as taught by Takemura, in order to allow a resin material flow between the support portions thus maintaining the fluidity of the insulating resin layer(¶0078).
Regarding claim 17, Kimura teaches the module according to claim 2, wherein when viewed in the front-back direction, a line connecting a lower end of the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046) in the left-right direction is defined as a plate-shaped portion lower side(Fig. 3b).
Kimura is not relied on to teach and one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion(24a, ¶0046).
Takemura teaches a module(Fig. 4a) wherein one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches(54, ¶0078) extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion(34, ¶0081). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kimura, so that one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion, as taught by Takemura, in order to allow a resin material flow between the support portions thus maintaining the fluidity of the insulating resin layer(¶0078).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 13-15 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “two of the slits or the slots are provided between the plate-shaped main body and the first intermediate support portion”.
Claims 15 and 20 depend on claim 5 and inherit it’s allowable subject matter.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the first intermediate protruding portion protrudes in a backward direction with respect to the plate-shaped main body, the second intermediate protruding portion protrudes in a forward direction with respect to the plate-shaped main body, a first slit or a first slot extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the first intermediate support portion,
a second slit or a second slot extending in the upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the first intermediate support portion and the second intermediate support portion, and
a third slit or a third slot extending in the upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the second intermediate support portion”.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “two of the slits or the slots are provided between the plate-shaped main body and the first intermediate support portion”.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the first intermediate protruding portion protrudes in a backward direction with respect to the plate-shaped main body, the second intermediate protruding portion protrudes in a forward direction with respect to the plate-shaped main body, a first slit or a first slot extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the first intermediate support portion,
a second slit or a second slot extending in the upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the first intermediate support portion and the second intermediate support portion, and
a third slit or a third slot extending in the upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side is provided between the plate-shaped main body and the second intermediate support portion”
Regarding dependent claim 18, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion.”
Regarding dependent claim 19, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “one or more plate-shaped portion lower notches extending in an upward direction from the plate-shaped portion lower side are provided in the plate-shaped portion.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892