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 .
Drawings
Figure 1A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one semiconductor chip in which one surface thereof is bonded to …the first and second substrates” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the third metal piece is bonded to … first and second substrates” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a thickness of the first metal piece in the electrical connecting member bonded to the semiconductor chip is greater than a thickness of the insulating layer of the first substrate or the second substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the right end part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the left end part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the right end part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the left end part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-6 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262).
Choi et al. disclose first substrate (200)(fig. 1) comprising a specific metal pattern (210) [0027] formed thereon to enable electrical connection; a second substrate (500) (fig. 1)facing the first substrate which is spaced apart from the first substrate and comprises a specific metal pattern (510) formed thereon to enable electrical connection; at least one semiconductor chip (300) in which one (bottom) surface thereof is bonded to the first substrate (see marked up figure 1 below), one electrical connecting member (600) a package housing (100) molded [0025] to cover the entire semiconductor chip and at least a part of the electrical connecting members (fig. 1); and at least one terminal (400) electrically connected to the first substrate and exposed to the outside of the package housing(fig. 1).
Choi et al. disclose fails to explicitly disclose at least one electrical connecting member comprising a first metal piece formed in a straight line, a second metal piece which faces the first metal piece and is formed in a straight line, and a third metal piece which is extended by being bent from one side of the first metal piece to the other end of the second metal piece and is combined to the first metal piece and the second metal piece, wherein the first metal piece is bonded to the other surface of the semiconductor chip by using a second bonding member interposed therebetween and the third metal piece is bonded to each of the second substrate, the first substrate, or the first and second substrates wherein a first acute angle between the first metal piece and the third metal piece and a second acute angle between the third metal piece and the second metal piece are each formed by being bent to be 1° through 85°.
Ma et al. disclose at least one electrical connecting member comprising a first metal piece formed in a straight line (26c)(fig. 5), a second metal piece (26a)(fig. 5) which faces the first metal piece and is formed in a straight line, and a third metal piece (26b)(fig. 5) which is extended by being bent from one side of the first metal piece to the other end of the second metal piece and is combined to the first metal piece and the second metal piece, wherein a first acute angle between the first metal piece and the third metal piece and a second acute angle between the third metal piece and the second metal piece are each formed by being bent to be 1° through 85° [0024] (40-50degrees).
The combination Choi et al. and Ma et al. would result in the first metal piece (Ma, 26c) is bonded to the other (top) surface of the semiconductor chip (Choi, 300) by using a second bonding member(see marked up figure 1 below) (the layer above 300 joins 300 to 600 Choi figure 1 similar to fig. 1A of applicant’s specification which shows layer 16 above semiconductor chip 14) interposed therebetween and the third metal piece (Ma, 26a) is bonded to each of the second substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a z-shaped connecting member), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the metal z-shape would provide more flexible connects [Ma, 0005], electrically connect the two substrates).
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. disclose the first substrate or the second substrate comprises at least one insulating layer [0027, aluminum oxide].
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al. disclose the first substrate or the second substrate comprises a metal layer formed of a conductive metal material [0027].
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. disclose the first substrate or the second substrate comprises at least one metal layer (210), at least one insulating layer (200), and at least one metal layer (220) which are stacked in order [0027].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Choi et al. and Ma disclose disclose the same device. MPEP 2144 IVA discloses “ the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” The examiner submits that claim limitation “metal layer of the first substrate or the second substrate bonded to the first bonding member has a thickness of 10 mm through 1.5 mm” is a relative dimension and would not perform differently than the prior art device, and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Choi et al. and Ma disclose disclose the same device. MPEP 2144 IVA discloses “ the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” The examiner submits that claim limitation “the electrical connecting member has a thickness of 0.1 mm through 1.5 mm” is a relative dimension and would not perform differently than the prior art device, and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 10, Ma disclose the third metal piece of the electrical connecting member is structurally connected to the right end part of the first metal piece and the left end part of the second metal piece(Ma Fig. 4, left side z-shape).
Regarding claim 11, Ma disclose the third metal piece of the electrical connecting member is structurally connected to the left end part of the first metal piece and the right end part of the second metal piece (Ma Fig. 4, right side z-shape).
Regarding claim 12, Ma disclose the third metal piece of the electrical connecting member is structurally connected between the first metal piece and the second metal piece in a diagonal direction (Ma fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. disclose additional electrical connecting members (700) structurally connected to the first
Regarding clam 14, Choi et al. disclose the additional electrical connecting member is structurally connected to the first substrate and the second substrate by using a conductive bonding member (700)(fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al. disclose one end of the terminal (400) is electrically connected to the first substrate (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al. disclose the first substrate (220) is exposed from the package housing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Choi et al. and Ma disclose disclose the same device. MPEP 2144 IVA discloses “ the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” The examiner submits that claim limitation “a thickness of the first metal piece in the electrical connecting member bonded to the semiconductor chip is greater than a thickness of the insulating layer of the first substrate or the second substrate” is a relative dimension and would not perform differently than the prior art device, and therefore is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Han et al. (US 7,576437).
Choi et al. and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrical connecting member has thermal conductivity of 150W/(m-k) through 550W/(m-k).
Han disclose the electrical connecting member (lead) is main component is copper (which has a thermal conductivity around 400W/(m-k)) [col. 1 lines 51-52].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using copper as a main component for a lead member), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the copper would be a good conducter of electricity and heat).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Han et al. (US 7,576437).
Choi et al. and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrical connecting member contains at least copper component.
Han disclose the electrical connecting member (lead) is main component is copper (which has a thermal conductivity around 400W/(m-k)) [col. 1 lines 51-52].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using copper as a main component for a lead member), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the copper would be a good conducter of electricity and heat).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Han et al. (US 7,576437).
Choi et al. and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose the first bonding member or the second bonding member contains at least any one of Ag, Cu, and Sn.
Han disclose the solder (bonding member) contains tin (Sn) and lead (which would not form whisker defects) [col. 1 lines 47 and 48].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using tin and lead solder), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the solder would bind/bond the lead to the substrate).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Eom et al. (US 8,860,196).
Choi et al. and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose at least any one of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises at least one radiation fin structurally exposed.
Eom et al. disclose at least any one of the first substrate (11, 112, 113) comprises at least one radiation fin (170)(heat sink) structurally exposed (fig 1E).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a heat sink/radiation fin), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the heat sink would transfer heat from the chip and help protect the chip from overheating).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731)(hereinafter Choi 2018) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0395264) (hereinafter Choi 2020).
Choi et al. 2018 and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. 2018and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose the semiconductor chip is a diode.
Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi 2020) disclose the semiconductor chip is a diode [0019].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using chip that is a diode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the current would flow one way in the diode).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0240731)(hereinafter Choi 2018) in view of Ma et al. (US 2016/0172262) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0343631) (hereinafter Choi 2021).
Choi et al. 2018 and Ma et al. disclose the invention supra.
Choi et al. 2018and Ma et al. fail to explicitly disclose the semiconductor chip is a diode.
Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi 2021) disclose the power converting device [0053] (power semiconductor used in converters).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using chip that is a diode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the current would flow one way in the diode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817