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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both inventions recite contacts being electrically connected. This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction was based on the contacts being integrally connected to the power semiconductor dies rather than needing additional steps to place separate contacts and connect those contacts after installation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230317575 (Pham).
As to Claim 1: Pham teaches a molded power semiconductor module, comprising:
one or more power semiconductor dies (106);
a molded body at least partially encapsulating the one or more power semiconductor dies, the molded body having a first side, an opposite second side, and lateral sides connecting the first and second sides (108 with top, bottom, and edge sides); and
a first and a second power contact arranged laterally next to each other at a first one of the lateral sides of the molded body and electrically coupled to the one or more power semiconductor dies, the first and second power contacts each comprising a first and an opposite second side (two contacts 110 on near side in Fig 2, first side facing forward and second side facing towards molded body),
wherein the first sides of the first and second power contacts each comprise an exposed part exposed from the molded body (first side exposed),
wherein the second sides of the first and second power contacts each comprise a part that is arranged in a vertical direction below an outline of the respective exposed part of the first side and that is at least partially covered by a protrusion part of the molded body (second side covered by 108),
wherein the vertical direction is perpendicular to the first and second sides of the first and second power contacts (two sides satisfy this limitation).
As to Claim 2: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, wherein the first and second power contacts further comprise lateral sides connecting the first and second sides (sides of first and second contacts facing one another), wherein a lateral side of the first power contact is arranged opposite a lateral side of the second power contact (edges opposite), and wherein the molded body completely shields the opposite lateral sides from one another such that a creepage distance between the first and second power contacts is increased (protrusion of 108 provides claimed shielding).
As to Claim 4, Pham teaches The molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, wherein the protrusion part of the molded body is configured to support the respective one of the first and second power contacts against a mechanical force of 1N or more pressing down onto the first side of the respective one of the first and second power contacts
(While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function or intended use. See MPEP 2114; see also MPEP 2103(C), generally. The intended function or use of a claimed structure is given patentable weight only so far as the structure is capable of performing that function or capable of the intended use. This capability is compared against the prior art, as opposed to prior teachings of the particular function or use. The claim language “configured to support the respective one of the first and second power contacts against a mechanical force of 1N or more pressing down onto the first side of the respective one of the first and second power contacts” has not been given full patentable weight because it is merely descriptive of an intended use or function. Therefore, structural limitations found in the prior art capable of performing said intended use or function, even if not explicitly stated, will be applied to the relevant claims in the instant application.).
As to Claim 5: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the protrusion part of the molded body is 1mm or more, the thickness being measured perpendicular to the first and second sides of the power contacts (this thickness direction extends across the entire width of the module, which examiner reasonably interprets to be of a dimension of 1mm or more).
As to Claim 8: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, further comprising:
control or sensing contacts exposed from the first side of the molded body (pin 120 may be for Kelvin sensing Fig 5 & ¶0019).
As to Claim 9: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, wherein the first and second power contacts are coplanar (two 110 coplanar).
As to Claim 10: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, wherein the molded body at least partially covers an edge portion of the first side of the first and second power contacts (108 covers edge of forward side of 110).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20250046664 (Tanikawa et al).
As to Claim 3: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first power contact is configured to carry a positive supply voltage and the second power contact is configured to carry a negative supply voltage.
Tanikawa teaches a module similar to that of Pham, and explicitly teaches two analogous contacts configured to carry positive and negative voltages (43 carry AC voltages which may switch between positive and negative ¶0070).
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 7: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach additional testing contacts.
Tanikawa teaches a module similar to that of Pham, explicitly having testing contacts exposed from the molded body and configured to provide electrical connections to top side electrodes of the one or more power semiconductor dies for electrical testing (46 comprise additional contacts with, e.g., 46B provided to test voltages applied to the semiconductor device ¶0086), wherein the first and second power contacts and the testing contacts are leadframe parts (contacts may reasonably be considered to be part of a leadframe).
It would have been obvious, for the same reasons as those presented for the claim 3 rejection, to combine the teachings of Pham and Tanikawa.
As to Claim 11: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second side of the molded body is configured to be arranged over a heatsink.
Tanikawa teaches a similar module wherein the second side of the molded body is configured to be arranged over a heatsink (module may be placed over a heat sink ¶0076).
It would have been obvious, for the same reasons as those presented for the claim 3 rejection, to combine the teachings of Pham and Tanikawa.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210225721 (Liu et al).
As to Claim 6: Pham teaches the molded power semiconductor module of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one further power contact arranged at a second one of the lateral sides of the molded body (additional 110 on opposite lateral side). However, Pham does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one further power contact is configured as a phase contact of the molded power semiconductor module.
Liu teaches a module similar to that of Pham, explicitly teaching that similar power modules were known to control three-phase motors. i.e., that an included third power contact may be configured as a phase contact (Liu ¶0045).
It would have been obvious, in light of the teaching of Liu, to include a further power contact configured as a phase contact. Such a configuration would allow for further flexibility in the type of power signals usable by the module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 Eastern.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/Corbyn D Mellinger/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights