Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (Group) I, (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed 09/09/2025 is acknowledged, Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further prosecution, and Claims 1-7 are prosecuted given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification.
Response to Amendment
The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-15 with Claims 8-15 withdrawn from further consideration due to election/restriction requirement in the application. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claim 1, added new Claims 16-17. Accordingly, Claims 1-7 and 16-17 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 12/22/2025, with respect to rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, however not persuasive.
Applicant argues that cited US 2016/0197028 to Yamada does not discloses newly added limitation of Claim 1 drawn to “a portion of a surface of the substrate facing the bonding member is exposed”
In support of this argument, the Applicant reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify the device with a portion of a surface of the circuit board facing bonding layer to be exposed, such a modification would destroy the integral encapsulation of the semiconductor and control board.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant analysis of Yamada’s semiconductor module.
For example, Yamada in a separate embodiment (In Fig 5) illustrates a portion (base of 1) of a surface of the substrate (1) facing the bonding member (5) being exposed.
Accordingly Examiner submits following MPEP 2111 guide lines, in a broadest reasonable interoperation in light of specification, embodiment of Fig 4 of Yamada could be modified to meet the requirement of the newly added limitation to Claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US 2016/0197028) in view of Lee (US 2025/0191984).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada (In Fig 4) discloses a power module (40) comprising:
a substrate (30), (¶ 16, II. 5-12);
a sealing member (51) disposed to cover the substrate (30), (Fig 4);
a heatsink (10a) bonded to one surface of the substrate (30), (Fig 4);
a stepped bonding portion (11) protruding from one surface of the heatsink (10a) toward the substrate (30), (Fig 4), however Yamada does not disclose wherein a bonding member disposed between and sinter-bonded to the stepped bonding portion and the substrate, wherein a portion of a surface of the substrate facing the bonding member is exposed.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 2) teaches wherein a bonding member (20) disposed between and sinter-bonded to the stepped bonding portion (stepped portion of 300 sintered to 100) and the substrate (100), (¶ 57, II. 1-6), (Fig 2), wherein a portion (110) of a surface of the substrate (100) facing the bonding member (20) is exposed.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee with a bonding member being disposed between and sinter-bonded to the stepped bonding portion and the substrate and a portion of a surface of the substrate facing the bonding member being exposed.to benefit from increasing bonding strength due to high thermal conductivity and facilitating heat transfer between the substrate and the heat sink, thereby increasing heat dissipation efficiency (Lee ¶ 57, II. 12-16).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Yamada (In Fig 4) further discloses wherein a bonding surface area of the stepped bonding portion (11) is smaller than a bonding surface area of the substrate (30), (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Yamada (In Fig 4) further discloses wherein a side surface of an edge of the stepped bonding portion (11) has a tolerance (d), (tolerance between step side wall of 10a and step side wall of 3), with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate (30), (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Yamada (In Fig 4) further discloses wherein the bonding member (5) includes a paste bonding member (Ag paste, ¶ 27, II. 13-14), or a preform bonding member.
Regarding Claim 16, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein the power module comprising a single stepped bonding portion.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 2) further teaches wherein the power module (1) comprising a single stepped bonding portion (20), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee with the power module comprising a single stepped bonding portion to benefit from increasing bonding strength due to high thermal conductivity and facilitating heat transfer between the substrate and the heat sink, thereby increasing heat dissipation efficiency (Lee ¶ 57, II. 12-16).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however where Yamada (In Fig 4) further discloses wherein a side surface of an edge of the stepped bonding portion (5) has a tolerance (d) inward with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate (1), (Fig 4), however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein the side surface is exposed.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 2) further teaches wherein the side surface (side surface of 20) is exposed (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada the side surface being exposed to benefit from increasing bonding strength due to high thermal conductivity and facilitating heat transfer between the substrate and the heat sink, thereby increasing heat dissipation efficiency (Lee ¶ 57, II. 12-16).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Lee further in view of Viswanathan et al (US 2018/0153030) and further in view of Lui (US 2020/0350276).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations 4, however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein, when the bonding member includes the paste bonding member: the bonding member is printed on the stepped bonding portion; and then a fixing solvent is applied on the bonding member.
Instead, Viswanathan (In Fig 6) teaches wherein, when the bonding member (124b) includes the paste bonding member (paste layer, ¶ 19, II. 10-15), (¶ 42, II. 9-13): the bonding member (124b) is printed (¶ 30, II.6-8), (¶ 42, II. 9-13) on the stepped bonding portion (stepped bonding portion of 122 sinter bonded to 134), (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee and further with Viswanathan with the bonding member including the paste bonding member being printed on the stepped bonding portion to benefit from enhanced heat dissipation capabilities and which are amenable to fabrication utilizing efficient, cost effective, warpage-resistance manufacturing processes (Viswanathan ¶ 2, II. 28-32), however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein a fixing solvent is applied on the bonding member.
Instead, Lui (In Fig 1) teaches wherein a fixing solvent (adhesive, ¶ 11, II. 1-9, ¶ 17, II. 1-2) is applied on the bonding member (7) (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee further with Viswanathan and further with Lui with a fixing solvent being applied on the bonding member to benefit from correct positioning contacts arranged on the semiconductor module with respect to carrier plate and avoiding leakage during incasing of the semiconductor module (Lui ¶ 3, II. 12-15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Lee and further in view of Shirakata et al (US 2020/0234905).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations 4, however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein, when the bonding member includes the preform bonding member: the bonding member is mounted on the stepped bonding portion.
Instead, Shirakata (In Fig 2) teaches wherein, when the bonding member (18) includes the preform bonding member (sheet, ¶ 37, II. 16-20): the bonding member (18) is mounted on the stepped bonding portion (12a), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee and further with Shirakata with the bonding member including the preform bonding member being mounted on the stepped bonding portion to benefit from making possible that speed of temperature rise in the second step portion be raised and hence the time before melting is shortened, while reducing heat transfer to electronic power device (Shirakata ¶ 13, II. 11-19).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Lee and further in view of Choi (US 2021/0057313).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada in view of Lee discloses the limitations 1, however Yamada as modified does not disclose wherein the sealing member includes an epoxy molding compound (EMC).
Instead, Choi (In Fig 2A) teaches wherein the sealing member (140) includes an epoxy molding compound (EMC), (¶ 41, II. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with Lee and further with Choi with the sealing member including an epoxy molding compound to benefit from protecting electronic components from environmental factors like moisture, dust and chemicals, while also providing crucial mechanical support and electrical insulation, preventing semiconductor package from being deformed and thereby, reliability and electrical characteristics may be stably secured (Choi ¶ 2, II. 1-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 571-272-3740. 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.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights