DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otremba (U.S. PGPub 2008/0197463) in view of Yoshihara (JP 2005-072098 A, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Otremba teaches a semiconductor module (Fig. 1, [0015]) comprising: a first semiconductor chip including a first main electrode (11, 17); a second semiconductor chip including a second main electrode (12, 17); a conductive pattern (23, [0019]), and a wiring member, wherein: the wiring member includes: a connection portion including a connection surface opposing the conductive pattern, a first portion including a first connection surface opposing the first main electrode, a second portion including a second connection surface opposing the second main electrode, and a coupling portion coupling the connection portion, the first portion, and the second portion to one another (see annotated Fig. 1, Figs. 2A-2B, 36, 27, [0032]); the conductive pattern and the connection surface are joined to each other by a joining material between the conductive pattern and the connection surface, the first main electrode and the first connection surface are joined to each other by a first joining material between the first main electrode and the first connection surface, and the second main electrode and the second connection surface are joined to each other by a second joining material between the second main electrode and the second connection surface ([0032]-[0033], 37).
PNG
media_image1.png
1807
1801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Otremba does not explicitly teach a connecting protrusion protruding from the connection surface toward the conductive pattern; a first protrusion protruding from the first connection surface toward the first main electrode; and a second protrusion protruding from the second connection surface toward the second main electrode.
Yoshihara teaches a semiconductor module having a wiring member connected to a conductive pattern and semiconductor chip electrode by a joining material (Fig. 1, [0008], 3, 6, 2, 5), wherein the wiring member has protrusions protruding from each connection surface towards the conductive pattern and semiconductor chip electrode (7, [0008]-[0009]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yoshihara with Otremba such that the module comprises a connecting protrusion protruding from the connection surface toward the conductive pattern; a first protrusion protruding from the first connection surface toward the first main electrode; and a second protrusion protruding from the second connection surface toward the second main electrode for the purpose of preventing short-circuiting (Yoshihara, [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara teaches wherein the wiring member has an axisymmetric shape in plan view (Otremba, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara teaches wherein the wiring member has a plane-symmetric shape across a symmetry plane (Otremba, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara teaches wherein the wiring member further includes a plurality of connecting protrusions including the connecting protrusion, wherein the plurality of connecting protrusions are provided on the connection surface (Yoshihara, Fig. 1(c)-(e)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara teaches wherein the connection portion has a planar shape that is elongated in a first direction in which the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip are arranged, and the connecting protrusions are arranged spaced apart from each other in the first direction (Otremba, see annotated Fig. 1; Yoshihara, Fig. 1(c)-(e)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara teaches wherein the first protrusion is formed on the first connection surface, and the second protrusion is formed on the second connection surface (Yoshihara, [0008]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Otremba teaches wherein the wiring portion may further contact a third semiconductor chip ([0028]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Otremba and Yoshihara such that the device comprises a third semiconductor chip including a third main electrode, wherein the wiring member further includes a third portion including a third connection surface opposing the third main electrode, a third protrusion protruding from the third connection surface toward the third main electrode, and the third main electrode and the third connection surface are joined to each other by a third joining material between the third main electrode and the third connection surface for the purpose of using the wiring portion to contact a third semiconductor chip.
Claims 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otremba (U.S. PGPub 2008/0197463) in view of Yoshihara (JP 2005-072098 A, cited in IDS) and Groenhuis (U.S. PGPub 2015/0287666).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara does not explicitly teach wherein the coupling portion includes: a first wiring portion coupling the connection portion and the first portion to each other; and a second wiring portion coupling the connection portion and the second portion to each other, and the first wiring portion and the second wiring portion are coupled to the connection portion at positions spaced apart from each other.
Groenhuis teaches wherein a wiring portion of a clip is formed bifurcated instead of merged (Fig. 1a, Fig. 2a, [0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Groenhuis with Otremba and Yoshihara such that the coupling portion includes: a first wiring portion coupling the connection portion and the first portion to each other; and a second wiring portion coupling the connection portion and the second portion to each other, and the first wiring portion and the second wiring portion are coupled to the connection portion at positions spaced apart from each other for the purpose of increasing flexibility and performance (Groenhuis, [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara does not explicitly teach wherein a shape of the connecting protrusion differs from that of each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
Groenhuis teaches wherein a connecting surface of a wiring portion has protrusions which may be dimples ([0034], 32/34) or ridges (Fig. 2a, [0026]) or any suitable shape ([0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Groenhuis with Otremba and Yoshihara such that a shape of the connecting protrusion differs from that of each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Otremba and Yoshihara does not explicitly teach wherein a dimension of the connecting protrusion is differs from that of each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
Groenhuis teaches wherein a connecting surface of a wiring portion has protrusions which may be dimples ([0034], 32/34) or ridges (Fig. 2a, [0026]) or any suitable shape ([0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Groenhuis with Otremba and Yoshihara such that a dimension of the connecting protrusion is differs from that of each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812