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.
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without traverse of Species (Group) I, (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed 09/09/2025 is acknowledged, Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further prosecution, and Claims 1-7 are prosecuted given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification.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The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-15 with Claims 8-15 withdrawn from further consideration due to election/restriction requirement in the application.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 previous response, the Applicant added new Claims 16-17, amended Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 17 and cancelled Claim 16. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claim 1, Accordingly, Claims 1-15 and 17 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 08/27/2026, with respect to rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn, however upon further search and consideration a new grounds of rejection has been set forth below necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1.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 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being Unpatentable over Lin et al (US 2010/0055812) in view of Lee (US 2025/0191984).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin (In Fig 5A) discloses a substrate (110);
a sealing member (102) disposed to cover the substrate (110), (Fig 5A);
a heatsink (56) bonded to one surface of the substrate (110), (Fig 5A);
wherein a single stepped bonding portion (22) being a portion of the heatsink (56) and protruding from one surface of the heatsink (56) toward the substrate (110), (Fig 5A), the single stepped bonding portion (22) including: a bonding surface (upper surface of 22 bonded to 106) facing the substrate (110), (Fig 5A); and a side surface (side surfaces of 22) extending between an edge of the bonding surface (upper surface of 22 bonded to 106) and the one surface of the heatsink (56), (Fig 5A), wherein a portion of a surface of the substrate (110) facing the bonding member (106) is exposed (Fig 5A), however Lin does not disclose a bonding member disposed between and sinter-bonded to the single stepped bonding portion and the substrate.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 3) teaches a bonding member (20) disposed between and sinter-bonded to the single stepped bonding portion (single stepped portion of 300 sintered to 100 by 20), (Fig 3) and the substrate (100), (¶ 57, II. 1-6), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with Lee with a bonding member being disposed between and sinter-bonded to the single stepped bonding portion and the substrate 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, Lin in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein a bonding surface area of the single stepped bonding portion is smaller than a bonding surface area of the substrate.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 3) teaches wherein a bonding surface area of the single stepped bonding portion (single stepped portion of 300 sintered to 100 by 20) is smaller than a bonding surface area of the substrate (100), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with Lee with a bonding surface area of the single stepped bonding portion being smaller than a bonding surface area of the substrate 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 3, Lin in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion has a tolerance (d) with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 3) teaches wherein a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion (single stepped portion of 300 sintered to 100 by 20) has a tolerance (d) with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate (100), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with Lee with a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion having a tolerance (d) with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate 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, Lin in view of Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion has a tolerance (d) inward with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate, and wherein the side surface is exposed.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 3) further teaches wherein a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion (single stepped portion of 300 sintered to 100 by 20) has a tolerance (d) inward with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate (100), (Fig 3), and 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 Lin with Lee with a side surface of an edge of the single stepped bonding portion having a tolerance (d) inward with respect to an edge of a bonding surface of the substrate and 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lee and further in view of Yamada et al (2016/0197028).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin in view of Lee discloses the limitations of 1, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein the bonding member includes a paste bonding member, or a preform bonding member.
Instead, Yamada (In Fig 4) teaches wherein the bonding member (5) includes a paste bonding member (Ag paste, ¶ 27, II. 13-14), or a preform bonding member.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lin with Lee and further with Yamada with the bonding member including a paste bonding member to benefit from obtaining a greater stress easing effect, higher melting point and greater strain applied to the edge of joint layer when the temperature is restored to normal temperature after the joint (Yamada ¶ 27, II. 13-20).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lee further in view of Yamada further in view of Viswanathan et al (US 2018/0153030) and further in view of Lui (US 2020/0350276).
Regarding Claim 5, Lin in view of Lee and further in view of Yamada discloses the limitations of 4, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein, when the bonding member includes the paste bonding member: the bonding member is printed on the single 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 single 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 Lin with Lee further with Yamada and further with Viswanathan with the bonding member including the paste bonding member being printed on the single 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 Lin 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 Lin with Lee further with Yamada 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 Lin in view of Lee further in view of Yamada and further in view of Shirakata et al (US 2020/0234905).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin in view of Lee and further in Yamada discloses the limitations 4, however Lin as modified does not disclose wherein, when the bonding member includes the preform bonding member: the bonding member is mounted on the single 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 single 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 Lin with Lee further with Yamada and further with Shirakata with the bonding member including the preform bonding member being mounted on the single 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 Lin in view of Lee and further in view of Choi (US 2021/0057313).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin in view of Lee discloses the limitations 1, however Lin 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 Lin 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(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 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 2841
Prosecution Insights