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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2014120619) hereinafter “Ichikawa” in view of Iwai et al. (US 2021/0327777) hereinafter “Iwai”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 of Ichikawa teaches a power semiconductor device comprising: a conductor plate (Item 1); an insulator (Item 2) mounted on the conductor plate (Item 1); a lead frame (Combination of Items 3 and 6) mounted on the insulator (Item 2); a first mold package (Item 7) including a semiconductor element (Item 4) provided on the lead frame inside thereof, and resin-sealed (Item 7) such that a main surface (Bottom surface) of the conductor plate (Item 1) opposite to a side on which the insulator is provided is exposed (the conductor is exposed relative to the first mold package covering the remainder of the conductor); and a second mold package (Item 9) in which the first mold package (Item 7) is resin-sealed such that the main surface is exposed (the conductor is exposed relative to the second mold package covering the remainder of the conductor), wherein the lead frame (Combination of Items 3 and 6) has a plurality of terminals (Items 3) protruding from one side surface of the first mold package (Item 7), the plurality of terminals (Item 3) are bent inside the second mold package (Item 9) in a direction opposite to the main surface of the conductor plate (Item 1), projecting from a front surface of the second mold package (Item 9) opposite to the conductor plate (Item 1).
Ichikawa does explicitly teach where there are a plurality of semiconductor elements nor the plurality of terminals are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side of the front surface in plan view.
Figs. 1, 2 and 5 of Iwai teach a power semiconductor device comprising multiple semiconductor elements (Items 21 or 22), where a plurality of terminals (Items 11 or 12) are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side of the front surface in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of semiconductor elements and gave the plurality of terminals be alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side of the front surface in plan view because this allows for the distance between adjacent lead terminals and their respective through holes to be increased (Iwai Paragraph 0109).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2014120619) hereinafter “Ichikawa” in view of Iwai et al. (US 2021/0327777) hereinafter “Iwai” and in further view of Yoshihara et al. (US 2003/0075783) hereinafter “Yoshihara”.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ichikawa and Iwai teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
Fig. 5 of Iwai further teaches where the plurality of terminals (Items 11 or 12) includes a plurality of first terminals (Shorter of Items 11) and a plurality of second terminals (Longer of Items 11), the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view because this allows for the distance between adjacent lead terminals and their respective through holes to be increased (Iwai Paragraph 0109).
Ichikawa does not teach in the first mold package, the side surface from which the plurality of terminals protrude has concave/convex shape in which a portion from which each of the plurality of first terminal protrudes is a convex portion, and a portion from which each of the plurality of second terminals protrudes is a concave portion.
Fig. 7 of Yoshihara teaches where in a mold package (Item 45) a side surface (Left side) from which a plurality of terminals (Items 2d and 2e) protrude has concave/convex shape in which a portion from which each of the plurality of first terminal protrudes is a convex portion, and a portion from which each of the plurality of second terminals protrudes is a concave portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, in the first mold package, the side surface from which the plurality of terminals protrude has concave/convex shape in which a portion from which each of the plurality of first terminal protrudes is a convex portion, and a portion from which each of the plurality of second terminals protrudes is a concave portion because this shape of mold package accommodates the different sized terminals protruding from the package while allowing for higher heat radiation properties being achieved (Yoshihara Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ichikawa, Iwai and Yoshihara teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach where each of the plurality of second terminals is provided so as to be accommodated in the concave portion in plan view.
Fig. 7 of Yoshihara teaches where, in a mold package (Item 45), each of a plurality of second terminals (Item 2e) is provided so as to be accommodated in the concave portion in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, each of the plurality of second terminals provided so as to be accommodated in the concave portion in plan view because this shape of mold package accommodates the different sized terminals protruding from the package while allowing for higher heat radiation properties being achieved (Yoshihara Paragraph 0091).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2014120619) hereinafter “Ichikawa” in view of Iwai et al. (US 2021/0327777) hereinafter “Iwai” and Yoshihara et al. (US 2003/0075783) hereinafter “Yoshihara” and in further view of Yoshihara (US 2022/0102264) hereinafter “Yoshihara2”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ichikawa, Iwai and Yoshihara teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach where the plurality of semiconductor elements includes a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively.
Fig. 6 of Iwai further teaches where the plurality of semiconductor elements (Item 21) include a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of semiconductor elements includes a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively because this allows for the semiconductor elements to be placed in a desired location in the mold package (Iwai Paragraph 0052). Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) states that design choice in which the alternate position of elements would not affect the operation of the device is obvious (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Ichikawa does not teach the plurality of first semiconductor elements are arranged closer to the side surface of the first mold package than the plurality of second semiconductor elements are, and the plurality of semiconductor elements are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on the lead frame in plan view.
Fig. 13 of Yoshihara2 teaches where semiconductor elements (Items 21 and 22) are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on a lead frame in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of first semiconductor elements are arranged closer to the side surface of the first mold package than the plurality of second semiconductor elements are, and the plurality of semiconductor elements are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on the lead frame in plan view because this all for the semiconductor elements to be placed in a desired location in the mold package (Yoshihara Paragraph 0097). Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) states that design choice in which the alternate position of elements would not affect the operation of the device is obvious (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ichikawa, Iwai and Yoshihara teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach where the plurality of semiconductor elements includes a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively.
Fig. 6 of Iwai further teaches where the plurality of semiconductor elements (Item 21) include a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of semiconductor elements includes a plurality of first semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of first terminals, respectively, and a plurality of second semiconductor elements electrically connected to the plurality of second terminals, respectively because this allows for the semiconductor elements to be placed in a desired location in the mold package (Iwai Paragraph 0052). Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) states that design choice in which the alternate position of elements would not affect the operation of the device is obvious (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Ichikawa does not teach the plurality of first semiconductor elements are arranged closer to the side surface of the first mold package than the plurality of second semiconductor elements are, and the plurality of semiconductor elements are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on the lead frame in plan view.
Fig. 13 of Yoshihara2 teaches where semiconductor elements (Items 21 and 22) are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on a lead frame in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of first semiconductor elements are arranged closer to the side surface of the first mold package than the plurality of second semiconductor elements are, and the plurality of semiconductor elements are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern on the lead frame in plan view because this all for the semiconductor elements to be placed in a desired location in the mold package (Yoshihara Paragraph 0097). Further, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) states that design choice in which the alternate position of elements would not affect the operation of the device is obvious (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2014120619) hereinafter “Ichikawa” in view of Iwai et al. (US 2021/0327777) hereinafter “Iwai” and in further view of Iwade et al. (US 7,728,413) hereinafter “Iwade”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ichikawa and Iwai teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach where the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
Fig. 5 of Iwai further teaches where the plurality of terminals (Items 11 or 12) includes a plurality of first terminals (Shorter of Items 11) and a plurality of second terminals (Longer of Items 11), the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view because this allows for the distance between adjacent lead terminals and their respective through holes to be increased (Iwai Paragraph 0109).
Ichikawa does not teach the second mold package has a projection between an array of the plurality of first terminals and an array of the plurality of second terminals on the front surface, extending in a direction parallel to both arrays.
Figs. 6I and 7 of Iwade teaches where rugged portions of a mold package (Item 7) comprise projections and recesses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second mold package have a projection between an array of the plurality of first terminals and an array of the plurality of second terminals on the front surface, extending in a direction parallel to both arrays because the projections serve to lengthen the creepage distance of mold resin packages at those positions between terminals (Iwade Column 4, Lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ichikawa and Iwai teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ichikawa does not teach where the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
Fig. 5 of Iwai further teaches where the plurality of terminals (Items 11 or 12) includes a plurality of first terminals (Shorter of Items 11) and a plurality of second terminals (Longer of Items 11), the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of terminals includes a plurality of first terminals and a plurality of second terminals, the plurality of first terminals are arranged closer to the one side than the plurality of second terminals are in plan view because this allows for the distance between adjacent lead terminals and their respective through holes to be increased (Iwai Paragraph 0109).
Ichikawa does not teach the second mold package has a recess between an array of the plurality of first terminals and an array of the plurality of second terminals on the front surface, extending in a direction parallel to both arrays.
Figs. 6I and 7 of Iwade teaches where rugged portions of a mold package (Item 7) comprise projections and recesses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second mold package have a recess between an array of the plurality of first terminals and an array of the plurality of second terminals on the front surface, extending in a direction parallel to both arrays because the projections serve to lengthen the creepage distance of mold resin packages at those positions between terminals (Iwade Column 4, Lines 50-55).
Alternately, Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2014120619) hereinafter “Ichikawa” in view of Iwai et al. (US 2021/0327777) hereinafter “Iwai”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 of Ichikawa teaches a power semiconductor device comprising: a conductor plate (Item 1); an insulator (Item 2) mounted on the conductor plate (Item 1); a lead frame (Combination of Items 3 and 6) mounted on the insulator (Item 2); a first mold package (Item 7) including a semiconductor element (Item 4) provided on the lead frame inside thereof, and resin-sealed (Item 7) such that a main surface (Bottom surface) of the conductor plate (Item 1) opposite to a side on which the insulator is provided is exposed (the conductor is exposed relative to the first mold package covering the remainder of the conductor); and a second mold package (Item 9) in which the first mold package (Item 7) is resin-sealed such that the main surface is exposed (the conductor is exposed relative to the second mold package covering the remainder of the conductor), wherein the lead frame (Combination of Items 3 and 6) has a plurality of terminals (Items 3) protruding from one side surface of the first mold package (Item 7), the plurality of terminals (Item 3) are bent inside the second mold package (Item 9) in a direction opposite to the main surface of the conductor plate (Item 1), projecting from a front surface of the second mold package (Item 9) opposite to the conductor plate (Item 1).
Ichikawa does explicitly teach where there are a plurality of semiconductor elements nor the plurality of terminals are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side of the front surface in plan view.
Figs. 1, 2 and 5 of Iwai teach a power semiconductor device comprising multiple semiconductor elements (Items 21 or 22), where a plurality of terminals (Items 11) are alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side (Right side in Fig. 5) of the front surface in a plan view while having another plurality of terminals (Items 12 in bottom left of the package in Fig. 5) which are aligned such that the form substantially a straight line the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of semiconductor elements and have the plurality of terminals be alternately arranged to form a staggered pattern in a place closer to one side of the front surface in plan view because this allows for the distance between adjacent lead terminals and their respective through holes to be increased (Iwai Paragraph 0109) and this may be required by the design layout and location of the semiconductor devices and corresponding wiring based on insulation and heating requirements (Iwai Paragraph 0002). .
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1 and 2 of Ichikawa further teaches where the lead frame has another plurality of terminals (Items 6) protruding from another side surface of the first mold package (Item 7) opposite to the one side surface of the first mold package, the another plurality of terminals (Item 6) are bent inside the second mold package (Item 9) in the direction opposite to the main surface of the conductor plate (Item 1), projecting from the front surface of the second mold package opposite to the conductor plate, and the another plurality of terminals are arranged in a row such that each of the another plurality of terminals form a substantially straight line in plan view.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the Iwai fails to cure the deficiencies of Ichikawa. The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant bases their argument on the Iwai reference not having certain features required by the claim (i.e. the second mold package, and location of the coating resin). However, MPEP 2145 (IV) states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981)”. In the previous and current rejection of claim 1, claim 1 is rejected using a combination of Ichikawa and Iwai. Ichikawa teaches all of the features that the Applicant argues Iwai does not. Iwai is relied upon for why it would have been obvious to have the plurality of terminals in Ichikawa be in a staggered pattern. As the Applicant has not shown why the teaching of staggered terminals in Iwai would not render the modification of Ichikawa obvious the Examiner maintains the reliance upon the combination of Ichikawa and Iwai to reject claim 1.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights