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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0006], Applicant recites, “It is particularly an object of this disclosure to provided a semiconductor”. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to recite, “It is particularly an object of this disclosure to provide a semiconductor”
In [0009], Applicant recites, “This symmetric substrate concept can be advantageously applied to semiconductor arrangements of different size …”. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to recite, “This symmetric substrate concept can be advantageously applied to semiconductor arrangements of different sizes”
In [0111], Applicant recites, “… this configuration enable a simultaneous current flow …”. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to recite, “ … this configuration enables a simultaneous current flow …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text is on shaded portions of the drawing, proving difficult to read. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that text should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
The drawings are objected to because shading is used improperly in the drawing, reducing its reproducibility. 37 CFR 1.84(m) requires that shading should not reduce legibility, solid black shading is not used except for bar graphs and color, and that shading with spaced lines is preferred.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
A first main surface and a second main surface. The Examiner has not found a reference number for either of these surfaces. Further, the Examiner cannot determine which surfaces in Applicant’s figures map to a first main surface and a second main surface. This is because the Examiner believes that Applicant’s first part and second part, 141a and 141b, pertain to load electrodes. However, elements 141a and 141b are on the fourth area 134. In fact, both of Applicant’s switches are located on parts 131, 132, 133, 134, and 135. Therefore, it is not clear which surface is a main surface as the surfaces pertaining to the switches are already accounted for.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 12 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
The terms “a first main surface” and “a second main surface”. The Examiner cannot determine which surfaces in Applicant’s figures map to a first main surface and a second main surface. This is because the Examiner believes that Applicant’s first part and second part, 141a and 141b, pertain to load electrodes. However, elements 141a and 141b are on the fourth area 134. In fact, both of Applicant’s switches are located on parts 131, 132, 133, 134, and 135. Therefore, it is not clear which surface is a main surface as the surfaces pertaining to the switches are already accounted for.
Claim 1 is further rejected because the terms “a first main surface” and “a second main surface” are repeated as part of a second group of semiconductor elements. The Examiner finds these repetitions to be indefinite because it is not clear to the Examiner whether or not the first main surface and the second main surface of the second group of semiconductor elements is the same as the first main surface and the second main surface of the first group of semiconductor elements.
Claim 1 is further rejected because the term “accommodating” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accommodating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is because the term accommodating does not detail the physical connection between electrically conductive areas and semiconductor elements. The Examiner interprets the term, “accommodating”, to mean “containing”.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected as they depend upon claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4,
The term “accommodate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accommodate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is because the term accommodate does not detail the physical connection between the second teeth of the comb-shaped structure , the semiconductor element, the second semiconductor element, and the third semiconductor element. The Examiner interprets the term, “accommodate”, to mean “contain”.
Claims 5 and 6 are further rejected as they depend upon claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5,
The term “formed opposite to the first teeth” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “formed opposite to the first teeth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This is because objects formed opposite to each other are formed on opposite parts of an object. For example, semiconductor devices may be formed on opposite sides of a substrate. Applicant has not indicated which object the second teeth of the comb-shaped structure is on the opposite side of relative to the first teeth of the comb-shaped structure. The Examiner interprets “formed opposite to the first teeth” to mean that the second teeth of the comb-shaped structure is on the opposite side of the third electrical connection line relative to the first teeth of the comb-shaped structure.
Regarding Claim 10,
The Examiner does not know what is meant by, “is dimensioned to form a straight connection line with respect to the top side of the substrate ”. This because the straightness of a connection line is independent of its position. It is not clear to the Examiner what the Applicant means. The Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean, “is dimensioned to form a straight connection line in parallel to the top side of the substrate”.
Regarding Claim 12,
The Examiner does not know what is meant by, “is dimensioned to form a straight connection line with respect to the top side of the substrate ”. This because the straightness of a connection line is independent of its position. It is not clear to the Examiner what the Applicant means. The Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean, “is dimensioned to form a straight connection line in parallel to the top side of the substrate”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest art the Examiner found is Jakobi et al US 20190139880 A1. Jakobi et al will be referenced to as Jakobi henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Jakobi fails to explicitly teach:
“a fourth electrically conductive area insulated from the first electrically conductive area, the second electrically conductive area and the third electrically conductive area, the fourth electrically conductive area accommodating at least a first semiconductor element, a second semiconductor element and a third semiconductor element of the second group of semiconductor elements” In view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Jakobi fails to explicitly teach the above limitation because the limitation cannot be found in the prior art of record.
This is because three electrically conductive areas of Jakobi (see FIG. 5), M4, M2 and M5, contain all of the semiconductor elements. Therefore, there is not a fourth electrically conductive area which can include a first semiconductor element, a second semiconductor element and a third semiconductor element of the second group of semiconductor elements.
The Examiner did not find prior art which one of ordinary skill in the art would use alone or would find obvious to combine with the invention of Jakobi to reach all of the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 2-19, these claims depend on claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 6:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812