DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-4, 13-15, and 17 in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 10/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Norio et al. ( JP 05037148; hereinafter Norio )
Regarding claim 1, Norio teaches a package structure ( Fig. 1 package structure 1 ) comprising: a power semiconductor device ( Fig. 1 ), a wire ( Fig. 1 wire 2 ), and a shape memory object ( Fig. 1 shape memory object 11 ), wherein the wire is electrically connected to the power semiconductor device ( as shown in Fig. 1 ), the shape memory object is in contact with the wire ( Fig. 1 through the board 3 ) , and the shape memory object ( Fig. 1 #11 ) is configured to deform when a temperature of the shape memory object reaches a preset temperature ( [0013]The shape memory alloys ( Shape Memory Alloy; SMA ) are functional materials that return to their original shape when heated to a certain temperature or higher in a plastically deformed state, and have a pseudo-elastic effect of returning to their original shape when a load is removed even if a large deformation is applied like rubber in a certain specific temperature region ), to enable a current in the wire to be cut off or reduced ( [0018] When heated to a predetermined temperature, the shape memory alloy 11 is warped as shown in FIG. 2, and a stress is generated in a direction in which the package body 1 is separated from the mounting portion. In this state, the package body 1 is pulled upward by a vacuum suction tool or the like, whereby the package body 1 is removed from the printed wiring board 3 ).
Regarding claim 2, Norio teaches the package structure according to claim 1 ( as discussed above), wherein the shape memory object ( Fig. 1 #11 ) is in insulated contact ( as shown in Fig. 1 ) with the wire ( Fig. 1 #2 ), the wire ( Fig. 1 #2 ) is at least partially packaged in the shape memory object ( Fig. 1 #11 ), and a stress generated when the shape memory object deforms acts on the wire ( paragraph [0018] ), to enable the current in the wire to be cut off ( as discussed in [0018] ).
Regarding claim 4, Norio teaches the package structure according to claim 2 ( as discussed above), wherein the package structure ( Fig. 4 package body 1 ) further comprises a package medium ( Fig. 4 housing structure 21 ), the power semiconductor device is packaged in the package medium ( as shown in Fig. 4 ), a part of the wire ( Fig. 4 #2 ) is packaged in the package medium ( Fig. 4 #21 ), and a remaining part of the wire ( Fig. 4 #2 ) is packaged in the shape memory object ( Fig. 4 #11 ).
Regarding claim 13, Norio teaches an electronic apparatus ( Fig. 4 ) comprising: the package structure according to claim 1( as discussed above) and a printed circuit board ( Fig. 4 printed circuit board 3 ), wherein the package structure is fastened to the printed circuit board ( as shown in Fig. 4 ) by using a solder formation ( Fig. 4 #4 ), a control circuit ( Fig. 4 strain sensor 24 ) is disposed on the printed circuit board ( Fig. 4 #3 ), the wire ( Fig. 4 #2 ) of the package structure ( Fig. 4 #1 ) is electrically connected to the control circuit ( Fig. 4 #24 ) on the printed circuit board ( Fig. 4 #3 ), and the control circuit ( Fig. 4 #24 ) is configured to control the power semiconductor device to turn on or off ( [0022] The strain sensor 24 is configured to detect the generation of an internal stress in the adhesive peeling direction from a strain phenomenon caused by the warp of the shape memory alloy piece 11 ).
Regarding claim 15, Norio teaches the package structure according to claim 1 ( as discussed above), wherein the wire is breakable and configured to break based on the deformation of the shape memory object ( [0018] When heated to a predetermined temperature, the shape memory alloy 11 is warped as shown in FIG. 2, and a stress is generated in a direction in which the package body 1 is separated from the mounting portion ).
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 3 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norio et al.; JP 05037148; 02/1993 in view of Thoppey et al.; US 2024/0016692 A1; 12/2020
Claim 3: Norio discloses the package structure according to claim 2 ( as discussed above).
Norio does not appear to disclose the shape memory object is a polymer having a one-way shape memory effect, or a ceramic having a one-way shape memory effect.
However, Thoppey teaches the shape memory object is a polymer having a one-way shape memory effect, or a ceramic having a one-way shape memory effect ( [0061] Shape memory polymers can deform to an applied external stimulus (such as heat) and memorize shape(s) temporarily. SMPs can be classified as one-way, two-way and multiple shape memory polymers based on number of shape that they can memorize or number of transformations that they can make ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Thoppey with Norio to implement the shape memory object is a polymer having a one-way shape memory effect, or a ceramic having a one-way shape memory effect because the application expects the material to recover from a temporary shape to its permanent shape when triggered but not switch back when the stimulus is removed.
Claim 14 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norio et al.; JP 05037148; 02/1993 in view of Topliss; US 2010/0074608 A1; 04/2008
Claim 14: Norio discloses the package structure according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Norio does not appear to disclose a resistivity of the shape memory object is more than 20 times the resistivity of the wire.
However, Topliss teaches a resistivity of the shape memory object is more than 20 times the resistivity of the wire ( [0032] Such low resistances may be achieved by selecting a conductive material which has low resistivity, for example at least 50 times less than the resistivity of the material of the SMA wire ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Topliss with Norio to implement a resistivity of the shape memory object is more than 20 times the resistivity of the wire because the shape memory device is made of a material with intrinsically higher resistivity than the wire.
Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norio et al.; JP 05037148; 02/1993 in view of Chiu et al.; US 11,106,112 B1; 08/2020
Claim 17: Norio discloses the package structure according to claim 1 ( as discussed above).
Norio does not appear to disclose the shape memory object is wound around an outer wall of the wire.
However, Ciu teaches the shape memory object ( Fig. 4 SMA wire 6 ) is wound around an outer wall of the wire ( Col. 7 lines 10-14 The SMA wire 6 is wound around a side of the wire rod 17 away from the first opening 11 so that when the SMA wire 6 is contracted, the wire rod 17 is pushed by the SMA wire 6 to drive the movable plate 1 for moving toward the direction of the first opening 11 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the teachings of Ciu with Norio to implement the shape memory object is wound around an outer wall of the wire because this approach is used to integrate the shape memory shape recovery directly into the mechanical system using the wire as a load path for the shape memory’s actuation force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY N FREY whose telephone number is (571)272-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5 pm.
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.
/K.N.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights