Attorney Docket Number: 130275-0107CT01
Filing Date: 9/19/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 3/19/2021 (EP21163698.0)
Inventors: Pavlicek et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed 2/05/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the
application as to 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 a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 2/05/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 12/03/2025, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 11, and added claims 16-20. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the respective claim rejections under 35
U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 12/03/2025. Accordingly, the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20. New grounds of rejections are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 recites a line reading “…and are formed by autoclave processing or out-of-autoclave composite manufacturing processing based on resin-transfer molding or balanced pressure fluid molding”, which will be interpreted as “…and are formed by autoclave processing or out-of-autoclave composite manufacturing processing, wherein the out-of-autoclave composite manufacturing is based on resin-transfer molding or balanced pressure fluid molding”.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die that is not encapsulated by a separate mold body…” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the line will be construed to recite “…wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die that is not encapsulated by a separate mold body that doesn’t also encapsulate the at least one semiconductor module...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi (US 20100232112 A1) in view of Wang (US 20170162620 A1) further in view of Kolleth (US 20120228756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uechi (see, e.g., fig. 2) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a power module comprising:
At least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11) having a metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”) with an integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6);
A first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) made from a plastic material (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”) and is molded (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…injection molding the case member…”) around at least parts of the metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”) to establish a form-fit connection with the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11);
A second housing part (e.g., metal case 5) joined to the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) to form a cavity (e.g., opening 43) for a coolant (see, e.g., paragraph 24) for cooling the integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6) of the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7+ substrates 3 + switching device 11);
Wherein the integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6) comprises fins (e.g., fins 7) extending from the metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”) that protrude through an opening (e.g., note the open space between case member 4) in the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) into the cavity (e.g., opening 43);
Uechi (see, e.g., figs. 4-5), however, fails to show that the first housing part is molded around at least parts of the metal baseplate without an intermediate adhesive layer, while it also fails to show the second housing part is made from a plastic material.
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Uechi, teaches a housing part (e.g., plastic encapsulation layer 203) made of plastic.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the plastic of Wang within the second housing part (hereinafter, plastic-modified case 5) of Uechi, in order to reduce the cost of forming the housing (see paragraph 101 of Wang).
Uechi in view of Wang, however, fails to teach wherein the first housing part is molded around at least parts of the metal baseplate without an intermediate adhesive layer.
Kolleth (see, e.g., 4), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang, teaches wherein a first housing part (e.g., plastic compound 30) is formed onto a baseplate (e.g., plate 125) without an intermediate adhesive layer (see, e.g., paragraph 25 or note that the plastic compound is formed directly on the plate 125) to establish a form-fit connection (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “During the subsequent molding process, it is preferable that the edge region of the plate and the outer side of the barrier form a form-fitting connection with the plastic compound. An especially reliable sealing is achieved because the plastic compound with a projecting plate produces a form-fit area both on the bottom side and on the top side of the plate. It is preferred to make the projection small, i.e., to make the projection within the range of the thickness of the barrier…“).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the direct form-fitting connection of Kolleth between the first housing part and metal baseplate of Uechi in view of Wang and omitting the adhesion layer 4a between the first housing part and metal baseplate, in order to achieve the expected result of configuring a directly conforming profile interface between the first housing part and metal baseplate.
Regarding claim 3, Uechi (see, e.g., figs. 4-5) shows wherein the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) and the second housing part (e.g., plastic-modified case 5) are joined by at least one of a plastic welding joint, an adhesive bonding joint (e.g., adhesive layer 8) and a heated material fusion joint.
Regarding claim 9, Uechi (see, e.g., figs. 4-5) in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth teaches wherein the form-fit connection established by molding the first housing part directly onto the metal baseplate without an intermediate adhesive layer (e.g., direct form-fit connection added via Kolleth, see claim rejection above) forming a seal (see, e.g., sealed configuration of fig. 5) for the coolant (see, e.g., paragraph 24) between (e.g., note that the connection forms a closed seal between the case member 4 and fins 7) the integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6) of the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11) and the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40).
Regarding claim 16, Kolleth (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches wherein the form-fit connection (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “During the subsequent molding process, it is preferable that the edge region of the plate and the outer side of the barrier form a form-fitting connection with the plastic compound. An especially reliable sealing is achieved because the plastic compound with a projecting plate produces a form-fit area both on the bottom side and on the top side of the plate. It is preferred to make the projection small, i.e., to make the projection within the range of the thickness of the barrier…”) established by the first housing part (e.g., plastic compound 30) around the baseplate (e.g., plate 125) is done without any screws, bolts, clamps, or mechanic fasteners (e.g., note that the plastic compound and the plate are formed directly to one another, and both the figures and drawings are silent about any additional mechanical parts like screws, bolts, clamps, or fasteners).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the screw/bolt/clamp/fastener omitting form-fitting connection of Kolleth within the configuration of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to achieve the expected result of saving space and cost of parts during the molding process.
Regarding claim 18, Uechi (see, e.g., fig. 2) shows wherein the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) is formed by injection molding (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…injection molding the case member…”) plastic material (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”) into a mold (e.g., mold of case member 4 post injection molding) with the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11) positioned as an insert (e.g., note the at least one semiconductor module is position/inserted between sides of case member 4) in the mold (e.g., mold of case member 4 post injection molding).
Kolleth (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches wherein the first housing part (e.g., plastic member 30) is formed by injection molding (see, e.g., paragraph 9 “…a plastic compound…is injected and cured…”) plastic material (e.g., plastic compound of plastic member 30) such that the plastic material flows around the baseplate (e.g., 125) to establish the form-fit connection (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “During the subsequent molding process, it is preferable that the edge region of the plate and the outer side of the barrier form a form-fitting connection with the plastic compound. An especially reliable sealing is achieved because the plastic compound with a projecting plate produces a form-fit area both on the bottom side and on the top side of the plate. It is preferred to make the projection small, i.e., to make the projection within the range of the thickness of the barrier…“).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the injection mold flow for form-fit connection setup of Kolleth within the first housing part and metal baseplate configuration of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to achieve the expected result of configuring a directly conforming profile interface between the first housing part and metal baseplate (also note that Uechi already injection molds case member 4 to flow to the metal baseplate area (see paragraph 10 or fig. 2 of Uechi), and the direct form-fit connection between the first housing part and metal baseplate is expanded upon in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kolleth (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches wherein the form-fit connection (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “During the subsequent molding process, it is preferable that the edge region of the plate and the outer side of the barrier form a form-fitting connection with the plastic compound. An especially reliable sealing is achieved because the plastic compound with a projecting plate produces a form-fit area both on the bottom side and on the top side of the plate. It is preferred to make the projection small, i.e., to make the projection within the range of the thickness of the barrier…”) is formed without any separate gasket, O-ring, or sealing element (e.g., note that the plastic compound and the plate are formed directly to one another, and both the figures and drawings are silent about any gaskets, O-rings, or sealing elements) disposed between the baseplate (e.g., plate 125) and the first housing part (e.g., plastic compound 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the gasket/O-ring/sealing element omitting form-fitting connection of Kolleth within the configuration of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to achieve the expected result of saving space and cost of parts during the molding process.
Regarding claim 20, Uechi (see, e.g., fig. 2) shows wherein the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) and the second housing part (e.g., plastic modified case 5) together form a complete enclosure (e.g., note that the semiconductor module is enclosed entirely by the surrounding combination of case member 4, internal space 40, and plastic modified case 5) for the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11) without any additional housing components.
Kolleth (see, e.g., fig. 4) teaches wherein the first housing part (e.g., plastic member 30) directly contacts the baseplate (e.g., plate 125).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the direct contact in order to achieve the expected result of configuring the directly conforming profile interface of Kolleth between the first housing part and metal baseplate of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth. Note that the first housing part and metal baseplate of Uechi already extend around a periphery of the opening through which the fins protrude, and hence are now modified to directly contact each other in this same periphery.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Lin (US 20200043881 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to teach wherein at least one of the first housing part and the second housing part is made from a fiber reinforced polymer material.
Lin (see, e.g., fig. 1B), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches a housing part (e.g., first insulating layer 110) comprising a fiber reinforced polymer material (see, e.g., paragraph 23 “ In some embodiments, the material of the first insulating layer 110 may be a dielectric material such as silicon oxide or silicon nitride, a molding material; a thermoplastic material such as an epoxy resin, a silicone resin, or an acrylic resin; a thermoset material such as polyetherimide (PEI), polyether-sulfone (PES), polyphenylene-sulfide (PPS), polyamide-imide (PAI), or polyethylene-terephthalate (PET); or a laminate material such as a fiber-reinforced polymer laminate material or a fiber-reinforced polymer laminate with filler particles”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the reinforced polymer material of Lin within the first housing part of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, because both polyphenylene sulfide and the fiber-reinforced polymer laminate material are recognized in the semiconductor art as thermoset/laminate materials, as taught by Lin, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Yui (US 20170156212 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Uechi (see, e.g., figs. 4-5) shows wherein at least one of the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) and the second housing part (e.g., plastic-modified case 5) comprises at least one of polyphenylene sulfide (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”), PPS (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”), polycarbonate, PC, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, ABS.
Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, however, fails to teach the polyphenylene sulfide/PPS within the first housing part is reinforced by glass fibers.
Yui (fig. 1), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches a housing part (e.g., insulator portion 71) comprising polyphenylene sulfide reinforced by glass fibers (see, e.g., paragraph 34 “… polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyether sulfone (PES), liquid crystal polymer (LCP), polyether imide (PEI), and fluorine resin (PFA) or a composite material in which a fiber material (such as glass fiber, carbon fiber, and aramid fiber) is incorporated into these resin materials…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the glass fibers of Yui within the polyphenylene sulfide of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to reinforce the stability and mechanical strength of the first housing part with the glass material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Jacob (US 20180132804 A1).
Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to teach wherein at least one of the first housing part and the second housing part is a laminated carbon composite part.
Jacob (see, e.g., figs. 2A and 2B), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches a housing part is a laminated carbon composite part (see, e.g., paragraph 31 “…the housing may be constructed from a carbon fiber composite…laminated with a metal coating or sheet to provide increased hermeticity at and in the vicinity of the surfaces of the sealing region 232…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the laminated carbon composite structure of Jacob within the housing of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to increase the efficiency and reliability of the hermetic sealing between the first and second housing parts (note that hermetic sealing was performed to bond the first and housing parts of Uechi-see, e.g., paragraphs 8-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Jacob, and Meyer (US 20140264914 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Jacob fails to teach wherein at least one of the first housing part and the second housing part comprises pre-impregnated composite fibers.
Meyer (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Jacob, teaches at least one of a first housing part and a second housing part comprises pre-impregnated composite fibers (see, e.g., paragraph 34 “Encapsulation compounds 11' and 21' are generally composed of a plastic material, and may be filled with silica, metal or ceramic filler or any other filler material. Interposer substrate 25 may be a printed circuit board, or alternately a ceramic or metal, such as lead frame. Thermosetting encapsulation compounds, in particular, are a type of plastic material based on epoxy resins. These types of compounds have historically been used in electronic packaging applications. Thermoplastics or laminates and prepregs are another type of plastic material which may be used as an encapsulation compound. Pre-preg is a term for “preimpregnated” composite fibres where a material, such as epoxy is already present. These usually take the form of a weave or are uni-directional”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the pre-impregnated composite fibers within the plastic housing parts of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Jacob, in order to achieve the expected result of inserting composite fibers into the compound during the manufacturing process, as taught by Meyer.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Yoo (US 9613885 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to teach wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die and a plurality of leads connected to the at least one power semiconductor die, wherein the plurality of leads are at least partially embedded into the plastic material of the first housing part.
Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches at least one semiconductor module (e.g., module 100) comprises at least one power semiconductor die (e.g., module 100 + paragraph 12 “…each module comprises a semiconductor die…” + paragraph 13) and a plurality of leads (e.g., leads 104) connected to the at least one power semiconductor die (see, e.g., paragraph 12), wherein the plurality of leads (e.g., leads 104) are at least partially embedded into plastic material (see, e.g., figs. 2A-2B + paragraph 3 “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an embodiment of a plastic housing which surrounds the periphery of a plurality of discrete modules…”) of a first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the die and plurality of leads embedded into the plastic material of the housing part of Yoo within the module of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to achieve the expected result of providing electronic components for different functions within the device, with leads in a protective plastic material to transmit signals or transfer power throughout the device as needed, protected by a cheap housing material (see, e.g., paragraphs 5-7 of Yoo).
Regarding claim 17, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die that is not encapsulated by a separate mold body prior to molding of the first housing part, and wherein the at least one power semiconductor die is directly embedded into the plastic material of the first housing part during molding of the first housing part.
Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches wherein the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., module 100) comprises at least one power semiconductor die (e.g., module 100 + paragraph 12 “…each module comprises a semiconductor die…” + paragraph 13) that is not encapsulated by a separate mold body (e.g., note that mold 102 encapsulates the entire module 100, hence there’s no ‘separate’ mold body that encapsulates exclusively the semiconductor die (also see, e.g., paragraph 12)) that doesn’t also encapsulate the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., module 100) prior to molding (see, e.g., paragraph 16 “The plastic housing 200 includes…plastic parts 204, 206. The plastic parts 204, 206 can be formed using any standard process such as injection molding…”) of the first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200), and wherein the at least one power semiconductor die (e.g., semiconductor die of paragraph 12) is directly embedded (e.g., note the entire module 100, which hence includes the power semiconductor die, is embedded entirely within the plastic housing 200) into the plastic material of the first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200) during molding of the first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the power die and molding configuration of Yoo within the device of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to supply the specialized power electronic functionality within the at least one semiconductor module and encapsulate/protect the entire module/power die during every step of the fabrication process through the mold body transitions during the fabrication process, respectively.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Spann (US 20170316993 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to teach at least one press-fit terminal, wherein the first housing part comprises a support structure configured to support the at least one press-fit terminal.
Spann (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches at least one press-fit terminal (e.g., electrical press-fit terminal 35), wherein a first housing part (e.g., plastic housing frame 2 + plastic cap 4) comprises a support structure (e.g., plastic cap 4) configured to support (see, e.g., paragraph 23 “the cap 4 is placed down over the electrical press-fit terminals so that the vertically extending press-fit pin portions of the various electrical press-fit terminals extend up through corresponding ones of the peripheral holes in the cap. When the cap is in place, the press-fit pin portions of the electrical press-fit terminals extend upward and away from the cap…”) the at least one press-fit terminal (e.g., electrical press-fit terminal 35).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the press-fit terminal and support structure of Spann configured to the first housing part of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to achieve the expected result of providing additional electrical connections as needed within the device, supported by a layered structure to support and hold the terminal as necessary.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Ammon (CN 110277360 A).
Regarding claim 10, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth fails to teach at least one of: a surface energy of a part of the metal baseplate embedded into the plastic material of the first housing part is greater than 45 mN/m, and a surface roughness of a part of the metal baseplate embedded into the plastic material of the first housing part is between 4 µm to 6 µm.
Ammon (see, e.g., paragraph text), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches a surface roughness of a metal base plate between 4 µm to 6 µm (see, e.g., paragraph text “In addition, it is proved that it is advantageous to the average roughness depth first main side of the first main side of the substrate and/or the metal plate is more than 1μm, in particular greater than 10μm”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the metal plate roughness depth range of Ammon within the base plate of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, in order to improve the adhesive connection or mechanical load capacity, as taught by Ammon. Note that while Ammon does not explicitly list a value between 4 µm to 6 µm, it discloses a range of a similar magnitude that would include a value between 4 µm to 6 µm.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda (US 20200043997 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Uechi (see, e.g., fig. 2) shows most aspects of the invention including a method for manufacturing a power module, comprising:
placing at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7 + substrates 3 + switching device 11) having a metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”) with an integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6);
Molding (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…injection molding the case member…”) a first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) made from a plastic material (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”), thereby establishing a form-fit connection between at least parts of the metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”) and the plastic material (see, e.g., paragraph 28 “Note that polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), cross-linked polyethylene (CV), or the like is used as a resin for the case member 4”) of the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40);
A second housing part (e.g., metal case 5) joined to the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) to form a cavity (e.g., opening 43) for a coolant (see, e.g., paragraph 24) for cooling the integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6) of the at least one semiconductor module (e.g., base plate 2 + fins 7+ substrates 3 + switching device 11);
Wherein the integrated cooling structure (e.g., fins 7 + cooling medium flow paths 6) comprises fins (e.g., fins 7) extending from the metal baseplate (e.g., base plate 2 + paragraph 8 “…the base plate is made of a metal…”);
Wherein molding (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…injection molding the case member…”) the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) comprises forming an opening (e.g., note the open space between the sides of the molded case member 4 from which the fins 7 protrude) in the first housing part (e.g., case member 4 + internal space 40) through which the fins (e.g., fins 7) protrude into the cavity (e.g., opening 43);
Uechi (see, e.g., figs. 4-5), however, fails to show that the molding of the first housing part the second housing part is made from a plastic material, while it also fails show placing the at least one semiconductor module in a first mold and molding a first housing part using the first mold, while it also fails to teach molding the second housing part and the second housing part being from a plastic material and that molding the first housing part using the first mold is done directly onto at least parts of the metal baseplate without an intermediate adhesive layer.
Wang (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Uechi, teaches molding (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “Optionally, a craftwork for forming the plastic encapsulation layer is an injection molding craftwork”) a housing part (e.g., plastic encapsulation layer 203) made of plastic.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the plastic of Wang within the second housing part (hereinafter, plastic-modified case 5) of Uechi, in order to reduce the cost of forming the housing (see paragraph 101 of Wang). In addition, it would have been obvious to form this second housing part via molding, as molding was a well-known technique at the time of filing the invention to form a plastic encapsulation housing material, as taught by Wang.
Kolleth (see, e.g., 4), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang, teaches wherein a first housing part (e.g., plastic compound 30) is formed directly onto at least parts of a baseplate (e.g., plate 125) without an intermediate adhesive layer (see, e.g., paragraph 25 or note that the plastic compound is formed directly on the plate 125), thereby establishing a form-fit connection (see, e.g., paragraph 25 “During the subsequent molding process, it is preferable that the edge region of the plate and the outer side of the barrier form a form-fitting connection with the plastic compound. An especially reliable sealing is achieved because the plastic compound with a projecting plate produces a form-fit area both on the bottom side and on the top side of the plate. It is preferred to make the projection small, i.e., to make the projection within the range of the thickness of the barrier…“) between at least parts of the baseplate (e.g., plate 125) and the first housing part (e.g., plastic compound 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the direct form-fitting connection of Kolleth between the first housing part and metal baseplate of Uechi in view of Wang and omitting the adhesion layer 4a between the first housing part and metal baseplate, in order to achieve the expected result of configuring a directly conforming profile interface between the housing part and metal baseplate.
Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, however, fails to teach placing the at least one semiconductor module in a first mold and molding a first housing part using the first mold joining the first housing part and the second housing part by a plastic joining method.
Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, teaches placing a semiconductor module in a first mold (see, e.g., paragraph 16 “The plastic housing 200 includes first and second singular (individual or discrete) plastic parts 204, 206. The plastic parts 204, 206 can be formed using any standard process such as injection molding…” + see, e.g., figs. 2A-2B + paragraph 3 “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an embodiment of a plastic housing which surrounds the periphery of a plurality of discrete modules…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to place the semiconductor module of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth into the mold of Yoo, in order to provide additional protection around the module, as taught by Yoo. Note that the first housing part of Uechi was formed using injection molding, and Yoo also forms the first mold using injection molding – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the same mold for forming the housing part and for placement of the semiconductor module, in order to reduce the required material and cost of fabricating the device during manufacturing.
Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Yoo, however, fails to explicitly teach a joining the first housing part and second housing part by a plastic joining method.
Sonoda (see, e.g., fig. 5C), in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Yoo, teaches joining plastic parts by a plastic joining method (see, e.g., paragraph 134 “…the support body 11 is bonded via an adhesive layer 12…” + paragraph 32 “…support body 11 including a transparent insulating material such as a plastic film…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the plastic joining method of Sonoda to join the housing parts of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth and Yoo, as the adhesive layer bonding was a well-known technique at the time of filing to join the first and second housing part (plastic-modified case 5), as taught by Sonoda.
Regarding claim 12, Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B) teaches wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die (e.g., module 100 + paragraph 12 “…each module comprises a semiconductor die…” + paragraph 13) and the die is embedded into a mold body (see, e.g., paragraph 5 “Each module comprises a semiconductor module encapsulated by a mold compound”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the die embedded into the plastic material of the housing part of Yoo within the module of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda in order to achieve the expected result of providing electronic components for different functions within the device, as well as embedding the die within the module within a mold compound/body, in order to achieve the expected result of providing a protective mold layer around the die.
Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda fails to explicitly teach that the die is embedded into a mold body before the at least one semiconductor module is placed in the first mold.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
the invention to modify the order of steps when starting the method using a slightly
different arrangement containing substantially similar parts. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440
(Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet
wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a
thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process
of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See
also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of
performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected
results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing
ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the
die embedding within a mold compound step before placing the module in a mold body, as opposed to starting with the semiconductor module placed in a mold body, and then embedding a die within a separate mold compound.
Regarding claim 13, Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B) teaches wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises at least one power semiconductor die (e.g., module 100 + paragraph 12 “…each module comprises a semiconductor die…” + paragraph 13) which is directly embedded into the plastic material (see, e.g., figs. 2A-2B + paragraph 3 “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an embodiment of a plastic housing which surrounds the periphery of a plurality of discrete modules…”) of a first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the die embedded into the plastic material of the housing part of Yoo within the module of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda, in order to achieve the expected result of providing electronic components for different functions within the device, as well as embedding the die within the module within the first housing part, in order to achieve the expected result of providing a protective plastic layer around the die/module. Note that this step of forming the plastic housing around the die/module would occur during forming said plastic housing (see, e.g., paragraphs 15 -16 of Yoo).
Regarding claim 14, Yoo (see, e.g., figs. 1 and 2A-2B) teaches wherein the at least one semiconductor module further comprises a plurality of leads (e.g., leads 104) connected to the at least one power semiconductor die (see, e.g., paragraph 12), wherein the leads (e.g., leads 104) being embedded into the plastic material of the first housing part (e.g., plastic housing 200) at least partially (see, e.g., paragraph 20 “The leads 104 of each discrete module 104 remain at least partly uncovered by the plastic housing 200. In the case of lead-frame type or similar leads, the leads 104 of each discrete module 102 protrude out of the plastic housing 200 as shown in FIGS. 2B and 3”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the leads of Yoo within the module of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda in order to achieve the expected result of transmitting signals or transferring power throughout the device as needed from the die.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, Sonoda, and Meyer.
Regarding claim 15, Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda fails to teach wherein the plastic material of at least one of the first housing part and the second housing part are made from pre-impregnated composite fibers and are made from pre-impregnated composite fibers and are formed by autoclave processing or out-of-autoclave composite manufacturing processing, wherein the out-of-autoclave composite manufacturing processing is based on resin-transfer molding or balanced pressure fluid molding.
Meyer (see, e.g., fig. 3) in a similar device to Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda teaches at least one of a first housing part and a second housing part are made from pre-impregnated composite fibers (see, e.g., paragraph 34 “Encapsulation compounds 11' and 21' are generally composed of a plastic material, and may be filled with silica, metal or ceramic filler or any other filler material. Interposer substrate 25 may be a printed circuit board, or alternately a ceramic or metal, such as lead frame. Thermosetting encapsulation compounds, in particular, are a type of plastic material based on epoxy resins. These types of compounds have historically been used in electronic packaging applications. Thermoplastics or laminates and prepregs are another type of plastic material which may be used as an encapsulation compound. Pre-preg is a term for "pre-impregnated” composite fibres where a material, such as epoxy is already present. These usually take the form of a weave or are uni-directional”) and are formed by autoclave processing (see, e.g., paragraph 34 “Hence, composite structures built of prepregs will mostly require an oven or autoclave to finish the complete polymerization”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the pre-impregnated composite fibers within the plastic housing parts of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda in order to achieve the expected result of inserting composite fibers into the compound during the manufacturing process, as taught by Meyer. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the autoclave process of Meyer within the method of Uechi in view of Wang further in view of Kolleth, Yoo, and Sonoda as the autoclaving process was a well-known technique at the time of filing to build composite structures of pre-impregnated composite fibers, as taught by Meyer.
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 THOMAS WILSON MCCOY whose telephone number is (571)272-0282. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights