DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s invention filed on 09/26/2023.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-15.
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, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa (US 2019/0139870) in view of Saklang (US 2020/0273810).
Regarding claim 1, Kogawa shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2) the most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10, comprising:
A package substrate 10
A main terminal 220-224 and 240-244 protruding from the package 10 (see, e.g., Kogawa: par. [0043] and [0063])
A control terminal 211-217 and 230-235 and protruding from the package 10
Kogawa, however, fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2) to at least one identification terminal protruding from the package 10. Saklang, in a similar semiconductor package to Kogawa, teaches (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) at least one identification terminal 26 protruding from package 20 (see, e.g., par. [0018]). Saklang also teaches that the identification terminals are used for testing the device and its internal circuitry or signals such as test clocks, test data in and out, power and ground (see, e.g., Saklang: par. [0018] and [0017]), which can be used to identify the device (see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114.I/2114.II).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the identification terminal of Saklang in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in order to provide a terminal that is used for testing the device and its internal circuitry or signals such as test clocks, test data in and out, power and ground, which can be used to identify the device.
Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) that information on a product is identifiable from an electrical characteristic (see, e.g., Saklang: par. [0018] and [0017]), an appearance (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C), see element 26 next to the shielding lead 28 or on the opposite side from the main terminals 24), or a shape of the at least one identification terminal.
Regarding claim 2, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) that the information on the product 20 is a rated value of the product 20 (see, e.g., Saklang: par. [0018] and [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) that the at least one identification terminal 26 includes a plurality of identification terminals 26.
Regarding claim 8, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) a plurality of identification terminals 26. Also, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2) plated terminals and non-plated terminals (see, e.g., Kogawa: par. [0059]). Thus, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2) plated identification terminals and non-plated identification terminals.
Regarding claim 10, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) that at least one identification terminal 26 protrudes from a side surface of the package different from a side surface from which the main terminal protrudes and a side surface from which the control terminal protrudes (Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2) that the side surface from which the main terminal protrudes is different than a side surface from which the control terminal protrudes; also, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) the identification terminal 26 protrudes from a side surface of the package different from a side surface from which the main terminal protrudes. Thus, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) shows the identification terminal 26 protrudes from a side surface of the package different from a side surface from which the control terminal protrudes).
Regarding claim 11, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C, and 3) a short lead 26 protruding from the package 20 (see, e.g., Saklang: fig. 3) and connected to the control terminal 211 in the package 10 (see, e.g., Kogawa: fig. 4).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa in view of Saklang in further view of Matsumoto (US 2021/0091119).
Regarding claim 4, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) including a plurality of identification terminals 26.
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show that the information on the product 10 or 20 is identifiable from a resistance value between the identification terminals 26. Matsumoto, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Matsumoto: figs. 1 and 8) that the information on the product 50 is identifiable from a resistance value 13 between the plurality of identification terminals 31/32 (see, e.g., Matsumoto: par. [0050] and [0066]). Matsumoto further shows that acquiring the resistance value of the second resistor 13 enables the specifications of the semiconductor device 50 to be identified (see, e.g., Matsumoto: par. [0050]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the product information identifiable from a resistance value of Matsumoto of between the plurality of identification terminals in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in view of Saklang in order to enable the specifications of the semiconductor device that should be identified.
Regarding claim 5, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) including:
The at least identification terminal 26 that includes three or more identification terminals 26
Two or more different pairs of identification terminals 26
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show that the information on the product 10 or 20 is identifiable from a resistance value between the two or more different pairs of identification terminals 26. Matsumoto, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Matsumoto: figs. 1 and 8) that the information on the product 50 is identifiable from a resistance value 13 between the plurality of identification terminals 31/32/33 (see, e.g., Matsumoto: par. [0050], [0066], [0089, and [[0090]). Matsumoto further shows that acquiring the resistance value of the first resistor 12 or the second resistor 13 enables the specifications of the semiconductor device 50 to be identified (see, e.g., Matsumoto: par. [0050]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the product information identifiable from a resistance value of Matsumoto of between the pairs of identification terminals in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in view of Saklang in order to enable the specifications of the semiconductor device that should be identified.
Regarding claim 6, Kowaga in view of Saklang in view of Matsumoto shows (see, e.g., Matsumoto: figs. 1 and 7-88) that at least two identification terminals 31/32/33 of the three or more identification terminals 31/32/33 are electrically connected in the package.
Regarding claim 7, Kowaga in view of Saklang in view of Matsumoto shows (see, e.g., Matsumoto: figs. 1 and 7-8) that at least one of the plurality of identification terminals 31/32/33 is electrically connected in the main terminal in the package.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa in view of Saklang in further view of Hakoda (JP 2003100979 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) including a plurality of identification terminals 26.
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show that the identification terminals 26 have different shapes. Hakoda, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Hakoda: fig. 1) that the identification terminals 2A/2C have different shapes (see, e.g., Hakoda: par. [0008] – [0009]). Hakoda further shows that identification terminals 2A/2C have different shapes in a small package that cannot afford a lot identification symbol printed on the surface of the package, and it is possible to achieve an improvement in surface mounting density (see, e.g., Hakoda: par. [0008] – [0009]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the identification terminals with different shapes of Hakoda in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in view of Saklang in order to achieve an improvement in surface mounting density.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa in view of Saklang in further view of Akinori (JP H07201937 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) including at least one identification terminal 26.
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show a recess portion in a side surface of the package. Akinori, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Akinori: fig. 1) that recess portion 21b is formed in a side surface of the package 21 (see, e.g., Akinori: par. [0011]). Akinori further shows that the recess in the package is to accommodate test terminals 23 such as no problem in their use by the user (see, e.g., Akinori: par. [0007]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the recess in the side surface of the package of Akinori in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in view of Saklang in order to accommodate test terminals such as no problem in their use by the user.
Kogawa in view of Saklang in view of Akinori shows (see, e.g., Akinori: fig. 1) that the least one identification terminal 23 is provided in the recess portion 21b.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa in view of Saklang in further view of Kawashima (US 2019/0057928).
Regarding claim 13, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) comprising a package that includes a chip (see, e.g., Saklang: par. [0027]).
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show that the chip is made with a wide bandgap semiconductor. Kogawa in view of Saklang is actually silent about what the semiconductor chip is made of. Kawashima, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Kawashima: figs. 1-2) that the semiconductor chip is made with a wide bandgap semiconductor (see, e.g., Kawashima: par. [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the wide bandgap semiconductor chip of Kawashima or the semiconductor chip of Kogawa in view of Saklang because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as semiconductor chips in the semiconductor packages, as taught by Kawashima and by Kogawa in view of Saklang, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Kogawa in view of Saklang in view of Kawashima shows (see, e.g., Kawashima: figs. 1-2) that the wide bandgap semiconductor is silicon carbide, a gallium nitride-based material, or diamond (see, e.g., Kawashima: par. [0084]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa in view of Saklang in further view of Sasaki (US 6144571).
Regarding claim 15, Kogawa in view of Saklang shows (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor module 10 or 20 (see paragraphs 6-8) comprising a semiconductor device (see, e.g., Saklang: par. [0027]).
However, Kogawa in view of Saklang fails (see, e.g., Kogawa: figs. 1 and 2, and also see, e.g., Saklang: figs. 2A-2C) to show a substrate provided to cover the package 10 or 20. Sasaki, in a similar device to Kogawa in view of Saklang, shows (see, e.g., Sasaki: fig. 4) a substrate 21b provided to cover the package 30. Sasaki further shows that the substrate 21b separates from a resin-molded outer package 30 and forms a basic structure for the power converter (see, e.g., Sasaki: col.6/II.27-42, and col.7/II.34-50).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the substrate covering the package of Sasaki in the semiconductor module of Kowaga in view of Saklang in order to separate from a resin-molded outer package and to form a basic structure for the power converter.
Kogawa in view of Saklang in view of Sasaki shows (see, e.g., Sasaki: fig. 4) that the substrate 21b is connected to the main terminal 17 and the control terminal 24 (see, e.g., Sasaki: col.6/II.27-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814