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 .
Acknowledgement of RCE Filing and Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/26 has been entered.
The amendment filed on 08/14/26 has been entered.
Applicant amended Claims 1, 5, 16, and added a new Claim 21.
Claims 1-21 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaku (US 20210020609) in view of Ishimaru (US 2005/0045369), Watanabe et al. (JP 2000349207), and Ito (US 2019/0043827).
In re Claim 1, Takaku teaches a semiconductor device comprising (Fig. 1):
a semiconductor element 20 that includes an element body containing a semiconductor (paragraphs 0022), and a first electrode – as a pad \connected to BW1 disposed on the element body (paragraph 0022);
a first wire BW1 (paragraph 0022) joined to the first electrode;
a sealing resin 60 (paragraph 0026) that covers the semiconductor element 20 and the first wire BW1; and
a covering portion 30 (paragraph 0020) interposed between the first electrode and the sealing resin 60, wherein
the first wire BW1 includes a first portion that extends from a location overlapping with the first electrode and to over an edge of the first electrode as viewed in a thickness direction of the semiconductor element,
the covering portion 30 is in contact with the first portion of the first wire BW1,
the covering portion 30 has an upper surface parallel to the plane orthogonal to the thickness direction, a curved surface connected to the upper surface, and a side surface connected to the curved surface and extending along the thickness direction.
Takaku does not teach that the covering portion contains a material having a higher thermal conductivity than the sealing resin, that an entirety of the first portion is parallel to a plane orthogonal to the thickness direction, and that the first portion protrudes from the side surface of the covering portion and into the sealing resin.
Ishimaru teaches (paragraph 002) that a material with a higher thermal conductivity shall be disposed closer to a heat generating element than a material with a lower thermal conductivity.
Watanabe teaches a wire 14 (Fig. 1, page 4, underlined section) joined to a first electrode 12 and including a first portion (a horizontal part of 14) that extends from a location overlapping with the first electrode 12 and to over an edge of the first electrode, wherein an entirety of the first portion is parallel to a plane orthogonal to a thickness direction of chip 1.
Ito teaches that a first portion of wire 3 (Fig. 9, paragraph 0029) connected to electrode 22 protrudes from a covering portion 4 into a sealing resin 5.
Takaku and Ishimaru teach analogous arts as directed to a stack of materials of different thermal conductivity. Takaku and Watanabe teach analogous arts as directed to a wire that is connected to the first electrode and extends over it. Takaku and Ito teach analogous art as directed to a semiconductor device having an electrode, a wire connected to the electrode, the electrode being covered with a stack of resin materials. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takaku device in view of Ishimaru, Watanabe, and Ito teachings, since Takaku and each of the cited inventors are from the same field of endeavor, where the cited inventors created successfully operated devices.
In view of Ishimaru, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the covering portion with a higher thermal conductivity than the sealing resin, in order to efficiently move the heat from the semiconductor element (Ishimaru, paragraph 0072).
In view of Ito, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to extend the first wire from the covering portion to the sealing resin region, when it is desirable to make a connection of the first wire to outside the covering portion.
In view of Watanabe and Ito, it would have been obvious creating the entirety of the first portion of the first wire in parallel to a plane orthogonal to the thickness direction and to extend it outside the covering portion through the side surface of the covering portion, e.g., to come up with a structure shown below in the Modified Annotated Fig. 1, where FE means “first electrode” and BW1 is still means the “first wire”, and where the first portion is an entire wire portion that is parallel to a top surface of the semiconductor element, excluding a bonding point.
Modified Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
224
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 2, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein, in the thickness direction, (as Modified Annotated Fig. 1 shows), a farthest distance from the first electrode FE to a portion of the covering portion 30 is larger than a farthest distance from the first electrode FE to a portion of the first portion (of BW1).
In re Claim 3, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 2 as cited above, wherein (Modified Annotated Fig. 1) the covering portion 30 covers at least a part of the first portion from a side opposite to the semiconductor element 20 in the thickness direction.
In re Claim 5, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein the first wire BW1 includes a bonding portion joined to the first electrode FE – bonding portion is inherent, since the wire is called a bonding wire - and the first portion is integrally linked to includes an end formed integral with the bonding portion and covered by the covering portion 30: the first portion extends outside the first electrode and is integrally linked to the bonding portion.
In re Claim 6, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein (Modified Annotated Fig. 1) the first wire BW1 includes a bonding portion joined to the first electrode (since the wired is called – a bonding wire), and the first portion – the entire portion that is parallel to a top surface of the semiconductor element 20 and excludes the bonded point - is joined – obviously - to the bonding portion.
In re Claim 7, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein the first portion is joined (e.g., “bonded”, Takaku, paragraph 0020) to the first electrode.
In re Claim 8, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above. Takaku does not teach that the covering portion contains a metal. Ito teaches (Fig. 1, paragraph 0045) that a covering portion 4 contains a metal (such as tin) as a resin filler.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito semiconductor device of Claim 1 by substituting a Takaku material of the covering portion with the covering material of Ito that contains metal, if such modification is beneficial for increasing a thermal conductivity of the material allowing for a better heat dissipation from the semiconductor element.
In re Claim 11, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 8 as cited above. Takaku does not teach that the first electrode contains Al since does not teach any material for the first electrode. Ito teaches (Fig. 9, paragraph 0036) that a first electrode 22 contain aluminum.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the first electrode from Al (per Ito), in order to enable creation of the first electrode.
In re Claim 12, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 11 as cited above. Takaku does not teach that the first wire BW1 contains Cu – this wire is made from gold (paragraph 0028). However, Takaki teaches (paragraph 0021) other wires made from copper.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the first wire from copper, when it is desirable to spend less money for the device and or when it is desirable to eliminate a number of material used for creation of wires and wiring layers.
In re Claim 13, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above. Takaku does not teach that the first electrode includes a groove portion that is in contact with the covering portion.
Ito teaches (Fig. 9, paragraph 0068) that a first electrode 22 includes a groove portion in contact with a covering portion 4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Takaku device by substituting its first electrode with a first electrode of Ito that includes a groove portion in contact with the covering portion, if such shape of the first electrode is preferred for the manufacturer. See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. In addition, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 14, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 13 as cited above, wherein the first electrode is formed per Ito. Ito further teaches (Fig. 9) that the first electrode 22 includes a first layer – as layer 22, and the groove portion 23 is formed by recessing a portion of the first layer 22.
In re Claim 20, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein (Modified Annotated Fig. 1 and Claim 1, as describing the first portion) the first portion includes a first part embedded in the covering portion 30 and a remaining part formed integral with the first part, the remaining part being exposed from the covering portion 30 and held in direct contact with the sealing resin 60.
In re Claim 21, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 1 as cited above, wherein (Modified Annotated Fig. 1 and Claim 1, as describing the covering portion), an entirety of the side surface of the covering portion 30 is parallel to the thickness direction.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito in view of Kajiwara et al. (US 2014/0264383).
In re Claim 9, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 8 as cited above, including the covering portion that may contain metal, but does not explicitly teach that the covering portion contains Ag or Cu.
Kajiwara teaches (Fig. 2) an electrode 1b separated from a sealing resin 14 (paragraph 0071) by a covering portion 16 comprised sintered Ag (paragraph 0057).
Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito and Kajiwara teach analogous arts directed to a semiconductor device comprised a semiconductor element covered by a sealing resin, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito device in view of Kajiwara device since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Kajiwara created a successfully functioning device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito device of Claim 8 by substituting its metallic material used for the covering portion with the sintered Ag (per Kajiwara), inherently having a higher thermal conductivity than the Ito sealing resin (as required by Claim 1), wherein such material is preferred for the manufacturer. See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. In addition, “It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice”, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re Claim 10, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito/Kajiwara teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 9 as cited above and wherein the covering portion contains sintered Ag.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito in view of Yu et al. (US 2008/0305306).
In re Claim 16, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito/ teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 13 as cited above, including the groove portion 23, per Ito, where the groove 23 (Fig. 9 of Ito) includes an outer peripheral portion – which is closest to a sidewall of electrode 22.
Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito does not teach that the groove extending along an outer edge of the first electrode.
Yu teaches (Figs. 4-5) a groove 70 formed layer 60 (paragraph 0031), where the groove extending along an edge of the layer 60.
Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito and Yu teach analogous arts directed to a groove in a layer or to a patterned surface, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito device in view of the Yu teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor and Yu created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the groove of Ito per Yu allowing it to extend along the outer edge of the first electrode, if such shape of the groove is desired by the manufacturer. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 17, Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito/Yu teaches the semiconductor device according to Claim 16 as cited above.
Ito further teaches (Fig. 9) that the groove portion includes an inner portion 23 located inward of the outer peripheral portion as viewed in the thickness direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 15, and 18 contain allowable subject matter, while Claim 19 depends on Claim 18. Accordingly, the current Office Action objects Claims 4, 15, and 18-19.
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 4: It is difficult to modify the combination of prior arts (Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito, used for Claim 1) to teach such limitation of Claim 4 as: “second portion” “stands upright in the thickness direction on a side away from the semiconductor element”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 4 and with all limitations of Claim 1, on which Claim 4 depends.
Re Claim 15: It is difficult to modify the combination of prior arts (Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito, used for Claim 13) to teach such limitation of Claim 15: “the groove portion is constituted by a slit formed in the first layer, and the second layer
exposed from the slit”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 13 and 1, on which Claim 15 depends.
Re Claim 18: It is difficult to modify the combination of prior arts (Takaku/Ishimary/Watanabe/Ito, used for Claim 1) to teach such limitation of Claim 18 as: “an upper region opposite to the lower region in the thickness direction, the lower region being greater in area than the upper region”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 18 and with all limitations of Claim 1 on which Claim 18 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments (REMARKS, filed 08/14/26) have been fully considered.
Examiner disagrees with the arguments related to rejection of Claim 1 (REMARKS, pages 6-7) and has an opinion that Claim 1 (that was examined by the Final Rejection) was appropriately rejected. However, Claim 1, as amended 08/14/26, was rejected by the current Office Action using another combination of prior arts.
Since an arguments related patentability of Claims 9-10, 16-17, and 21 (REMARKS, pages 7-8) are connected with the suggested allowability of Claim 1, the Examiner disagrees with the arguments.
The current Office Action found Claim 15 as containing allowable subject matter (REMARKS, page 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 08/20/26
Prosecution Insights