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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 20, 2026, has been entered. No claim(s) has/have been canceled or added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 and 21-29 continue to be pending in the application with claim 3 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavier (US 10,074,590, hereinafter “Pavier”, previously cited) in view of Carney et al. (2007/0278664, hereinafter “Carney”), McPherson et al. (US 2024/0213124, hereinafter “McPherson”, previously cited), and Suh et al. (US 2018/0269863, hereinafter “Suh”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Pavier teaches in Figs. 5, 7, 15 and 17A-17B (Figs. 1 and 7 shown below) and related text an apparatus, comprising:
a lead frame (col. 11, ll. 51-60 and col. 13, ll. 40-54);
a direct bond metal (DBM) structure (e.g. 102, Fig. 1, col. 11, ln. 65 and col. 12, ln. 20) including an insulating layer (122, Fig. 1 and col. 12, ll. 1-29);
a first die and a second die (104, Fig. 1 and col. 11 and ll. 51 - 60) attached side--by-side to the DBM structure (102, Fig. 1);
a metal clip (134, Figs. 1, 7 and col. 14, ll. 43 - 50) having first ends coupled to a lead frame and a second end opposite the first end, the second end including a first tab (134, Figs. 1 and 7) coupled to a top side of the first die (104, Figs. 1 and 7) and a second end (104, Figs. 1 and 7) coupled to a top side of the second die (104, Figs. 1 and 7),
an electrical connection (bond wires in Fig. 7) coupling a gate terminal of the first die (104, Fig. 7, col. 17, ll. 47-58) directly to a gate lead frame post (112, Figs. 5, 7 and col. 14, ll. 18-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pavier, however, does not explicitly teach that the metal clip has a first end coupled to a lead frame. Moreover, Pavier does not explicitly teach that the power connection of the lead frame is a ground connection.
To begin with, Carney, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that metal clip, such as that disclosed by Pavier, that includes two tabs at first end and two tabs at a second end, can include a single tab at first end (Figs. 6 and 7), as an alternative design of the metal clip, and McPherson teaches that a clip that includes a single tab at one end and two tabs at the second end (Fig. 60), and one that includes a single tab at each end (Figs. 61-63), are art recognized equivalents that can be used in order to meet specific design requirements for the device.
Accordingly, since prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the metal clip disclosed by Carney and McPherson, for the metal clip disclosed by Pavier, as doing so would amount to nothing more than using art recognized equivalent metal clip designs in order to meet specific design requirements.
Moreover, while Pavier, Carney and McPherson, do not explicitly teach that the power connection of the lead frame is a ground connection, using ground for the power connection disclosed by Pavier, Carney and McPherson is known in the art as disclosed by Suh (Fig. 4 and ¶[0026]).
Accordingly, since prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ground for the power connection disclosed by Pavier, Carney and McPherson, as doing so is well-known in the art for operating IGBT transistors in power devices.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Pavier, Carney, McPherson and Suh further discloses a wire bond coupling a sense terminal of the second die to a sense lead frame post (112, Pavier, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4 (1), the combined teaching of Pavier, Carney, McPherson and Suh discloses wherein the metal clip (Pavier, 134, Figs. 1 and 7 as modified by Carney and McPherson) includes a notch separating the first tab and the second tap (McPherson, Fig. 60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-11 and 21-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an apparatus particularly characterized by a U-shaped metal clip having a first tab coupled to a top side of a first die and a second tab coupled to a top side of a second die, and also coupled to a lead frame, and wire bonds including first wire bond coupling a gate terminal of the first die to a gate terminal of the second die and a second wire bond coupling the second die to a gate pad, as recited in claim, in combination with all other elements of the apparatus recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Pavier, Carney, McPherson and Suh fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim. Claim(s) 6-11 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim(s) 5, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 5, is/are allowed for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding an apparatus particularly characterized by die attach pad, a boundary of which defines a cutout, with a gate pad disposed in the cutout, where a first wire bond couples a first gate terminal of a first die to a second gate terminal of a second die and a second wire bond couples the second gate terminal to the gate pad, as recited in the claim, in combination with all other elements of the apparatus recited in the claim(s). The closest prior art of record to Pavier, Carney, McPherson and Suh fails to disclose the above noted elements of the claim. Claim(s) 22-29 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim(s) 21, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 21, is/are allowed for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
