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 .
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, 502.05.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the title.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-14, 19, 27, 29-30 are objected to.
Claim 1, Line 8 recites, “a first regulation plate” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “a first regulating plate”.
Claim 1, Line 13 recites, “a first regulating plate” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “the first regulating plate”.
Claim 1, Line 9 recites, “the inner plate being overwrapped the first semiconductor component” which is unclear. It appears it should be changed to read, “the inner plate overlapping the first semiconductor component”.
Claim 9 recites, “a second heat conduction member” which suggests that there is a first heat conduction member already claimed, however since claim 9 depends from claim 5, a first heat conduction member has not already been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that claim 9 be changed to depend from claim 8.
Claim 27 recites, “a second heat conduction member” which suggests that there is a first heat conduction member already claimed, however since claim 27 depends from claim 23, a first heat conduction member has not already been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that claim 27 be changed to depend from claim 26.
Claim 29 recites, “a third semiconductor component” which suggests that there is a second semiconductor component already claimed, however since claim 29 depends from claim 20, only a first semiconductor component has previously been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that the claim be changed to depend from claim 27.
Claim 29 recites, “a third heat conduction member” which suggests that there is a second heat conduction member already claimed, however since claim 29 depends from claim 20, only a first heat conduction member has previously been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that the claim be changed to depend from claim 27.
Claim 30 recites, “a fourth semiconductor component” which suggests that there is a third semiconductor component already claimed, however since claim 30 depends from claim 20, only a first semiconductor component has previously been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that the claim be changed to depend from claim 29.
Claim 30 recites, “a fourth heat conduction member” which suggests that there is a third heat conduction member already claimed, however since claim 30 depends from claim 20, only a first heat conduction member has previously been defined. Accordingly, it is suggested that the claim be changed to depend from claim 29.
Claims 3-8, 10-14, 19 are objected to since they depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies therein.
Applicant should review the claims for any such similar issues.
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.
Claims 1, 3-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “another part of the first regulating plate and the substrate are parallel and fixed to the housing” which is unclear. The first regulating plate is believed to be that of element 41 in Fig 2 (Present written description, ¶ 0044, “The first regulation portion 41 is an example of each of a “first regulating plate” and a “first inclined plate”. The first regulation portion 41 may be referred to as a “first regulating plate portion” or a “first inclined plate portion”.). The first regulating plate is shown to be at an angle and there does not appear to be another part of element 41 which is parallel and fixed to the housing (10).
Claims 3-14, 19 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiency therein.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation will not be considered.
Appropriate clarification or amendment is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 14, 19, as best understood by the Examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 2022/0087072) in view of Long (US 10,937,464).
With respect to claim 1, Matsuda teaches (In Fig 9) a semiconductor storage device (Title) comprising: a housing (2); a substrate (101) positioned in the housing; a first semiconductor component (33B) on the substrate; a capacitor (43) on the substrate, the capacitor including a first portion overlapping the first semiconductor component from a side opposite to the substrate when viewed from a first direction (-Z, See Fig 9, a part of 43 overlaps 33B when viewed from above), the first direction (-Z) being a thickness direction of the substrate (See Fig 9); an inner plate (Bottom 50) including a first regulating plate, when viewed from the first direction, the inner plate overlapping the first semiconductor component (33B, see Fig 9), the inner plate (Bottom 50) and the substrate (101) are parallel (See Fig 9), the inner plate disposed with a space between itself and the capacitor (See Fig 9, there is a space between 42 and bottom 50); wherein the first regulating plate (Bottom 50) arranged to guide at least some air that flows inside the housing toward a first gap between the capacitor and the substrate (When 23 functions as an air intake hole (¶ 0034, “One of the first communication hole 22 and the second communication hole 23 may function as an air intake hole”) then air will flow into the housing via 23, flow between the bottom plate (50) and the substrate (101) and then flow between the capacitor (43) and the substrate (101) and out of the housing via hole 22, see Fig A below).
Matsuda fails to specifically teach or suggest a part of the first regulating plate is inclined with respect to the first direction.
Long, however, teaches (In Fig 6) a storage device which includes a plate (206 + portion that fins 202 attach to) wherein at least a part of the plate is inclined with respect to a first direction (206 is inclined with respect to a first direction, see Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Long with that of Matsuda, such that, in Matsuda at least a part of the first regulating plate is inclined with respect to the first direction, as taught by Long, since doing so would allow for the first regulating plate to provide accelerated airflow to the chip 33B since the area between the plate and the substrate would be reduced as the airflow travels toward the capacitor.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Matsuda further teaches wherein the housing includes one or more ventilation holes (Lowest 23 in Fig 9) open in a second direction (+X) different from the first direction (-Z), and the first regulating plate (Bottom plate 50) disposed between the capacitor (43) and the one or more ventilation holes (Lowest 23, see Fig 9) in the second direction (+X) and overlapping the one or more ventilation holes (Lowest 23) when viewed from the second direction (+X, see Fig 9).
With respect to claim 4, Matsuda further teaches that the capacitor (43) includes a cylindrical-shaped component main body (See Fig 7) with a central axis along a second direction (+X) different from the first direction (-Z, see Fig 7), and a lead (Not labeled, but shown in Fig 9, portion which extends from 43 to 101) protruding from the component main body and being connected to the substrate (See Fig 9), the component main body overlaps the first semiconductor component from the side opposite to the substrate when viewed from the first direction (-Z, see Fig 9), and the first regulating plate (Bottom 50) is arranged to guide the at least some air that flows inside the housing toward a second gap (Applicant’s specification discloses that the first and second gaps are the same gap, (see Fig 3 and ¶ 0050 where Fig 3 shows S and g being the same gap and ¶ 0050 discloses that S ang g are the “first gap” and “second gap”, respectively (“The gap S is an example of a “first gap”. The gap g is an example of a “second gap””)) and so the second gap of Matsuda is similarly the same gap as the first gap, see Fig A above) between the component main body and the substrate.
With respect to claim 14, Matsuda further teaches that the capacitor includes a cylindrical-shaped component main body with a central axis along a second direction (+X) different from the first direction (-Z, see Fig 7), and a lead protruding from the component main body and connected to the substrate (Not labeled, but shown in Fig 9, portion which extends from 43 to 101), the first gap including a third gap (See Fig A above) between the component main body and the first semiconductor component, and the first regulating plate arranged to guide the at least some air, which flows inside the housing, toward the third gap (See Fig A above).
With respect to claim 19, Matsuda further teaches that the first regulating plate (Bottom 50) is along a straight line connecting an opening and an edge of the substrate (101, See Fig B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17-18, 20-31, pending correction of the above-mentioned informalities, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 15, 17-18, see p. 13 of the non-final office action.
With respect to claims 20-31, see pp. 12-13 of the non-final office action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “However, neither Matsuda nor Long, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest the combination of features as recited in amended claim 1. For example, as admitted by the Office, Matsuda is silent on teaching the part of the first regulating plate is inclined with respect to the first direction. Amended claim 1 further recites that the first regulating plate includes at least two parts: one inclined with respect to the first direction and another parallel and fixed to the housing. Thus, no teaching or suggestion of a first regulating plate including a part inclined with respect to the first direction and another part parallel and fixed to the housing in Matsuda or Long is found. Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is patentable and allowable over the prior art.” (Present remarks pages 13-14) the Examiner respectfully notes that, as per the above 112(b) rejection to claim 1, the Examiner is unable to resolve the limitations, “another part of the first regulating plate and the substrate are parallel and fixed to the housing” in light of the specification. Accordingly, these limitations cannot be a reason for allowance at this time and the combination of Matsuda and Long are believed to teach all the other limitations of claim 1, as per the above 103 rejection thereto.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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, Jayprakash N Gandhi can be reached at 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 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835