DETAILED ACTION
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/Restriction
Applicant’s 11 NOV 2025 election (REM page 5) without traverse of Invention I, shown in FIGS. 1-8 and described in claims 1-11, is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 19 AUG 2022. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of said application as required by U.S.C 119, which papers have been placed of record in the file. See 12 SEP 2023 submission.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 JUL 2023 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission follows provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAGUCHI et al. (WO 2022137996; below, “YAMAGUCHI”).
RE 1, YAMAGUCHI, in FIGS. 1-14 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0002] to [0095], claims 1-19, discloses a semiconductor device (A10) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
850
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first lead having a die pad (3);
a second lead (52) arranged to be spaced apart from the first lead;
a first semiconductor element (11) mounted on the die pad (3); and
a plurality of wires (62) electrically connected to the first semiconductor element (11) and the second lead (52), wherein the die pad (3) and the second lead (52) are arranged side by side in a first direction (x) perpendicular to a thickness direction (z), and wherein all of the plurality of wires (62) are inclined with respect to the first direction (x) when viewed in the thickness direction (z).
Thus, YAMAGUCHI anticipates this claim.
RE 2, YAMAGUCHI discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of wires (62) includes a first bonding portion bonded to the first semiconductor element (11) and a second bonding portion bonded to the second lead (52), and wherein the first bonding portion is located on a first side in a second direction (y), which is perpendicular to the thickness direction (z) and the first direction (x), from the second bonding portion.
RE 3, YAMAGUCHI discloses the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the second lead (52) has a second lead main surface facing a first side in the thickness direction (z), wherein the second lead main surface (55 top) includes a bonding region to which the plurality of wires (62) is bonded and a non-bonding region to which the wires (62) are not bonded, and wherein the non-bonding region is arranged on the first side in the second direction (y) of the bonding region (e.g., FIG. 1).
RE 6, YAMAGUCHI discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of wires (62) is curved in a second direction (y), which is perpendicular to the thickness direction (z) and the first direction (x).
RE 7, YAMAGUCHI discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the second lead (52) has a through-hole (563a) penetrating in the thickness direction (z).
RE 8, YAMAGUCHI discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first semiconductor element (11) is a switching element.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows (Graham Factors):
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMAGUCHI. At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 4, YAMAGUCHI is silent regarding the semiconductor device of claim 3, wherein a first dimension of the bonding region in the second direction (y) is 40% or more and 60% or less of a second dimension of the second lead (52) in the second direction (y).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify YAMAGUCHI wherein a first dimension of the bonding region in the second direction (y) is 40% or more and 60% or less of a second dimension of the second lead (52) in the second direction (y), because it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). MPEP Chapter 2100, § 2144.05.
RE 5, YAMAGUCHI is silent regarding the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein dummy leads are respectively arranged on both sides of the second lead (52) in a second direction (y), which is perpendicular to the thickness direction (z) and the first direction (x). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of YAMAGUCHI wherein dummy leads are respectively arranged on both sides of the second lead in a second direction, which is perpendicular to the thickness direction and the first direction, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YAMAGUCHI with evidence from or in view of PHAM, JR. et al. (US 20230047555; below, “PHAM”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 9, YAMAGUCHI is silent regarding the semiconductor device of claim 8, wherein the first semiconductor element (11) contains GaN.
It would have been obvious … to modify YAMAGUCHI such that the first semiconductor element contains GaN, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see PHAM’s [0034], [0039].
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, Wood et al. (US 20150348885), is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. Wood et al. does not teach, inter alia, a first semiconductor element (62) mounted on the die pad (11); and a plurality of wires (7) electrically connected to the first semiconductor element (62) and the second lead (2), wherein the die pad (11) and the second lead (2) are arranged side by side in a first direction (x) perpendicular to a thickness direction (z), and wherein all of the plurality of wires (7) are inclined with respect to the first direction (x) when viewed (plan view) in the thickness direction (z).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815