Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/448,748

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
PARTHASARATHY, ROHIT
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 23 resolved
+23.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
54
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
56.6%
+16.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 23 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 3 has overcome the 112(b) rejection of that claim. Accordingly, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection of Claim 3. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 (and the claims that depend on them) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016092346A (Seiji) in view of US20160071778A1 (Otsubo). Regarding Claim 1, Seiji discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1, el. 100, Para. [0010] comprising: a semiconductor element (Fig. 1, el. 2b, Para. [0012]) on an insulating substrate (Fig. 1, el. 1, Para. [0011]); a case (Fig. 1, el. 7, Para. [0026]) having an opening (Fig. 1) and accommodating the semiconductor element and the insulating substrate (Fig. 1); a signal terminal (Fig. 1, el. 7b, Para. [0022]) provided on an inner wall of the case (Fig. 1, Para. [0022]); a printed board (Fig. 1, el. 5, Para. [0010]) disposed above the semiconductor element in the case by the signal terminal (Para. [0013]); and a lid (Fig. 1, el. 6, Para. [0010]) that closes the opening of the case (Para. [0026]), wherein the semiconductor element and the signal terminal are electrically connected by a conductive plate (Fig. 1, el. 4, Para. [0022]), the conductive plate is curved upward (Fig. 2, el. 4a, Para. [0017]), and a top portion of the conductive plate is in contact with a back surface of the printed board (Fig. 1, Para. [0015]). Seiji does not disclose that the signal terminal is provided on a protruding portion protruding from the inner wall of the case above an end portion of the insulating substrate, and does not disclose that the semiconductor element and the signal terminal are electrically connected by a wire, the wire is curved upward, and a top portion of the wire is in contact with a back surface of the printed board. Otsubo discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1) comprising a semiconductor element (Fig. 1, el. 3, Para. [0028]), an insulating substrate (Fig. 1, el. 1, Para. [0028]), a case (Fig. 1, el. 51, Para. [0028], and a signal terminal (Fig. 1, el. 42, Para. [0033]), where the signal terminal is provided on a protruding portion protruding from the inner wall of the case above an end portion of the insulating substrate (see annotated Fig. 1 below). PNG media_image1.png 565 834 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seiji by having the case protrude over an end portion of the insulating substrate, as in Otsubo. Doing so would have the benefit of shortening the connection wire between the semiconductor element and the signal terminal. Further, it would have been obvious to substitute a plurality of wires for the conductive plate in Seiji. This would have the benefit of using a lighter material (the material to make the wire) than the one used to make a conductive plate, resulting in a lighter overall package. Regarding Claim 2, Seiji in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device comprises a plurality of wires (see analysis of claim 1 above), and the top portion of each of the wires is in contact with the back surface of the printed board (see analysis of claim 1 above – when a plurality of wires replace the conductive plate, they will all touch the back surface of the printed board). PNG media_image2.png 414 682 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 3, Seiji in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the wire (see 112(b) rejection above) is curved in a corrugated shape (Para. [0014] – the conductive plate of Seiji is in a corrugated shape, and when this is replaced by a wire, the wire will be as well), and a plurality of the top portions of the wire is in contact with the back surface of the printed board (see annotated Fig. 1 above). Regarding Claim 5, Seiji in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the printed board with which the top portion of the wire is in contact has a same potential as the wire (Fig. 1, Para. [0024], wire 4 is electrically connected to the back of printed board 5, and so they have the same potential). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji in view of Otsubo and US8680660B1 (Law). Regarding Claim 4, Seiji in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Seiji in view of Otsubo does not disclose a support wire that supports the top portion of the wire from below. Law discloses a semiconductor device (Figs. 2A and 2B, el. 30, Col. 2, ll. 52-56) with a support wire (Figs. 2A and 2B, el. 54, Col. 3, ll. 60-64) that supports another wire (Figs. 2A and 2B, el. 50, Col. 3, ll. 60-65). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a support wire as disclosed by Law to support the wire disclosed by Seiji. As disclosed by Law, this has the advantage of preventing sagging of the supported wire and potentially contacting another wire, causing a short (Col. 3, ll. 60-65). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji in view of Otsubo and US20190131210A1 (Hino). Regarding Claim 6, Seiji in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Seiji in view of Otsubo does not disclose that the wire includes a ribbon wire. Hino discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1, Para. [0018])) with semiconductor elements (Fig. 1, els. 2 and 3, Para. [0019]) connected by ribbon wires (Fig. 1, els. 17, 18, and 19, Para. [0021]). it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ribbon wires of Hino in place of the wire of Seiji. As disclosed by Hino, ribbon wires can carry a higher current with a lower resistance, and the amount of self-heating can be reduced (Para. [0021]). Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170301603A1 (Murakami) in view of Otsubo. Regarding Claim 7, Murakami discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1, el. 100, Para. [0023]) comprising: a semiconductor element (Fig. 1, el. 5, Para. [0023]) on an insulating substrate (Fig. 1, el. 10, Para. [0028]); a case (Fig. 1, el. 3, Para. [0023]) having an opening and accommodating the semiconductor element and the insulating substrate (Fig. 1, Para. [0027]); a signal terminal (Fig. 1, el. 15, Para. [0042]) provided on an inner wall of the case (Fig. 1, Para. [0042]); a printed board (Fig. 1, el. 9, Para. [0032]) disposed above the semiconductor element in the case by the signal terminal (Fig. 1); a sealing material (Fig. 1, el. 35, Para. [0049]) that seals the semiconductor element in the case (Para. [0049]); and a lid (Fig. 4, el. 23, Para. [0052] – this is the same device as Fig. 1, except the lid completely covers the opening) that closes the opening of the case (Para. [0052]), wherein the sealing material is in contact with the printed board (Fig. 1, Para. [0050]). Murakami does not disclose that the signal terminal is provided on a protruding portion protruding from the inner wall of the case above an end portion of the insulating substrate. Otsubo discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1) comprising a semiconductor element (Fig. 1, el. 3, Para. [0028]), an insulating substrate (Fig. 1, el. 1, Para. [0028]), a case (Fig. 1, el. 51, Para. [0028], and a signal terminal (Fig. 1, el. 42, Para. [0033]), where the signal terminal is provided on a protruding portion protruding from the inner wall of the case above an end portion of the insulating substrate (see annotated Fig. 1 above). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murakami by having the case protrude over an end portion of the insulating substrate, as in Otsubo. Doing so would have the benefit of shortening the connection wire between the semiconductor element and the signal terminal. Regarding Claim 8, Murakami in view of Otsubo discloses a semiconductor device according to claim 7, wherein the sealing material is in contact with only a back surface side of the printed board (Murakami, Fig. 1, Para. [0050]) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Otsubo and JP2003243609A (Kimoto). Regarding Claim 9, Murakami in view of Otsubo discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7. Murakami in view of Otsubo does not disclose a method of manufacturing the semiconductor device according to claim 7, the method comprising mounting the printed board above the semiconductor element in the case and then filling the case with the sealing material. Kimoto discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (Para. [0025]) that comprises mounting a printed circuit board above a semiconductor element (Para. [0025]) and then filling a case with the sealing material (Para. [0025]). it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method disclosed by Kimoto to make the semiconductor device disclosed by Murakami in view of Otsubo. This would combine prior art elements (the method of Kimoto with the semiconductor device of Murakami in view of Otsubo) according to known methods (the method of Kimoto, used to make a semiconductor device) to yield a predictable result (the semiconductor device disclosed by Murakami in view of Otsubo). 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 ROHIT PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-2572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5p. 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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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. /ROHIT PARTHASARATHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 30, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604770
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599008
TRANSISTOR WITH SOURCE MANIFOLD IN NON-ACTIVE DIE REGION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593736
POWER MODULE PACKAGE WITH STACKED DIRECT BONDED METAL SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588509
TERMINAL INTERPOSERS WITH MOLD FLOW CHANNELS, CIRCUIT MODULES INCLUDING SUCH TERMINAL INTERPOSERS, AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588572
Semiconductor Device and Method of Forming Fine Pitch Conductive Posts with Graphene-Coated Cores
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 23 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month