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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of FIG 1, without traverse which encompasses claims 1 - 8 and 13 - 19 in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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 - 8 and 13 - 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 “the two first semiconductor elements are connected in parallel with each other” is unclear and indefinite as in parallel to what two connection. For example the two first semiconductor elements are connected in parallel with each other with some terminals and then in series with other terminals as the same time. As such it is unclear and indefinite as to parallel to what frame of reference. Further the applicant did not claim electrical in parallel and layout in parallel or electrical in series and layout in parallel or electrically in series and layout in parallel or vice versa. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim recites “the first conduction path and the second conduction path are at least partially in parallel” is unclear and indefinite as to what degree is in parallel to be partial in parallel. Is it partial electrically parallel or layout in parallel? As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. 20220302075.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 1 of Masuda discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
two first semiconductor elements 11/12 each having a first electrode (drain electrode 1), a second electrode (source electrode 502), and a third electrode (gate electrode 501), with a switching operation being controlled depending on a first driving signal inputted to the third electrode (via element 4 and 91);
a first conductor (bonding wire of 32 between 11 and 12) electrically connecting the second electrodes 502 of the two first semiconductor elements;
a second conductor 2 electrically connecting the second electrodes 502 of the two first semiconductor elements 11/12; and
a first power terminal 92 electrically connected to the first conductor and electrically conducting to the second electrodes 502 of the two first semiconductor elements;
wherein
the two first semiconductor elements 11/12 are connected in parallel with each other (relative to element 2),
a first conduction path 35A and a second conduction path 35B are provided by the first conductor (bonding wire of 32 between 11 and 12) and the second conductor 2 (35A and 35B exist only because element 2 and element 32), respectively, between the second electrodes 501 of the two first semiconductor elements, the first conduction path and the second conduction path are at least partially in parallel (see 35A and 35B are parallel), and
a combined inductance of the first conduction path 35A and the second conduction path 35B is smaller than an inductance of the first conduction path 35A (total inductance of inductors connected in parallel is always less than the smallest individual inductance).
Regarding claim 4, fig. 1 of Masuda discloses further comprising: a first wiring part 35A and a second wiring part 35B spaced apart from each other; and a first connection member (portion of element 2) electrically connected to the second electrodes of the two first semiconductor elements, wherein the first wiring part 35A is electrically connected to the first electrodes of the two first semiconductor elements, the second wiring part 35B is joined by the first connection member 2, thereby electrically connected to the second electrodes of the two first semiconductor elements via the first connection member, and the first conductor includes a part of the first connection member (electrical current part) and a part of the second wiring part (electrical current part such as electrons which are shared between the parts).
Regarding claim 19, Masuda discloses wherein each of the two first semiconductor elements is a MOSFET, the first electrode is a drain electrode, the second electrode is a source electrode, and the third electrode is a gate electrode.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to form a device wherein an inductance of the second conduction path is smaller than the inductance of the first conduction path in order to meet the applicant circuit design requirement.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to form a device wherein a length of the second conduction path is shorter than a length of the first conduction path in order to meet the applicant resistance requirement.
Regarding claim 5, Musada does not disclose of wherein each of the two first semiconductor elements has a first element obverse face and a first element reverse face spaced apart from each other in a thickness direction of the first semiconductor elements, and in each of the two first semiconductor elements, the first electrode is disposed on the first element reverse face, and the second electrode and the third electrode are disposed on the first element obverse face.
However, n reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
In reJapikse, 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.); 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).
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Masuda comprising wherein each of the two first semiconductor elements has a first element obverse face and a first element reverse face spaced apart from each other in a thickness direction of the first semiconductor elements, and in each of the two first semiconductor elements, the first electrode is disposed on the first element reverse face, and the second electrode and the third electrode are disposed on the first element obverse face in order to meet the applicant design structure.
Regarding claim 6, Masuda discloses wherein each of the two first semiconductor elements is mounted on the first wiring part with the first element reverse face facing the first wiring part.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 1A of Masuda discloses wherein the second conductor 2 includes a second connection member (bond wire 35 joins to element 2), and the second connection member is joined to the second electrodes of the two first semiconductor elements.
Regarding claim 8, Masuda discloses wherein the second connection member is a bonding wire.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 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 and overcoming 112 2nd rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights