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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamari, US 2012/0211802 (corresponding to US 8,466,494).
In re Claim 1, Tamari discloses a switching element 1, comprising: an element front surface (a top surface (11, 12, 13, 14, 8, 5, 6, 7, 16) in (Fig. 2), marked as EFS in Fig. A) on which a gate pad 5, a plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) (Fig. B) and a plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) are formed (Figs. 1-6 and b; [0025 -0049]), while Tamari does not explicitly indicate that a source area which is a total area of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4)) is greater than a drain area which is a total area of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4).
The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 1 and Tamari’s reference is in the specified ratio of the areas.
It is known in the art that the total area is a result effective variable – because a mass of pads depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the source area which is the total area of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) greater than the drain area which is the total area of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 2, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 2, except for that a ratio of the source area to the drain area is between 5/3 and 2. It is known in the art that the source area and the drain area is a result effective variable – because a mass of the pads depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the the ratio of the source area to the drain area is between 5/3 and 2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Tamari’s Fig. 2 annotated to show the details cited
In re Claim 3, Tamari discloses the switching element of Claim 1, wherein both the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) are alternately arranged in a first direction 1D along the element front surface EFS (Fig. B).
In re Claim 4, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 4 except for that an area of each of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than an area of each of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4). The only difference between the Applicant’s Claim 4 and Tamari’s reference is in the specified ratio of the areas. It is known in the art that the source area and the drain area is a result effective variable – because mass of the pads depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the area of each of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than an area of each of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B. Tamari’s Fig. 1 annotated to show the details cited
In re Claim 5, Tamari discloses switching element of Claim 4, wherein the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) are formed to have same size, and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) are formed to have same size. (Fig. B).
In re Claim 6, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that in the first direction 1D, a width (WS= WS1 + WS2 + WS3 + WD4) of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than a width (WD = WD1+WD2+WD3+WD4) of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) (Fig. B).
The only difference between the Applicant’s Claim 4 and Tamari’s reference is in the specified ratio of the widths. It is known in the art that width of the source area and the drain area is a result effective variable – because mass of the pads depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the width (WS= WS1 + WS2 + WS3 + WD4) of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than a width (WD = WD1+WD2+WD3+WD4) of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP2144.04).
In re Claim 7, Tamari discloses the switching element of Claim 5, wherein a width (WS= WS1 + WS2 + WS3 + WD4) of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and a width (WD = WD1+WD2+WD3+WD4) of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) are same (Fig. B), while Tamari does not indicate that a number of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than a number of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4).The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 7 and Tamari’s reference is in a ratio of the number of the plurality of pads. It is known in the art that the number of the plurality pads is a result effective variable – because a mass of pads depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the number of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) is greater than a number of the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 8, Tamari discloses the switching element of Claim 3, wherein when viewing from a direction perpendicular to the element front surface EFS (Fig. A), each of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) has a rectangular shape with a width direction as the first direction 1D and a length direction as a second direction 2D along the element front surface EFS and orthogonal to the first direction 1D (Fig. B).
In re Claim 9, Tamari discloses the switching element of Claim 3, wherein one of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) includes an end pad DP1, disposed near a first (left) end of the element front surface EFS in the first direction 1D, the end pad DP1 includes a recess Rc formed in a corner portion (between II and II) located close to the first (left) end, and the gate pad 5 is arranged in a region R formed by the recess Rc and disposed at the corner portion. (Figs. A and B).
In re Claim 10, Tamari discloses the switching element of Claim 3, wherein at least one of a first source pad SP1 among the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and a first drain pad DP1 adjacent to the first source pad SP1 in the first direction 1D has a recess Rc, and the gate pad 5 is arranged in the recess Rc. (Figs. A and B).
In re Claim 11, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 1, including that one of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4) includes an end pad (SP1 or DP1) disposed near a first (left) end of the element front surface EFS in the first direction 1D, except for that a distance between the first (left) end of the element front surface EFS on which the end pad (SP1 or DP1) is disposed and the end pad in the first direction 1D is less than a width (WS1, WS2 , WS3 , WD4) ; (WD1, WD2, WD3, WD4) of each of the plurality of source pads (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) and the plurality of drain pads (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4). The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 11 and Tamari’s reference is in the ratio between the distance and the width.
In re Claim 12, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 12 except for that the switching element is a GaN HEMT. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to substitute GaAs HEMPT transistor of Tamari with GaN HEMT, since 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 (See MPEP2144.07).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamari as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Ozaki et al., US 2021/0384340.
In re Claim 13, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 13 except for a sealing resin sealing the switching element; and a gate terminal, a source terminal and a drain terminal exposed from the sealing resin.
Ozaki teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 27), comprising: the switching element 1210; a sealing resin 1231 sealing the switching element 1210; and a gate terminal 1226g, a source terminal 1226s and a drain terminal 1226d exposed from the sealing resin 1231 ([0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine teachings of Tamari and Ozaki, and to use the specified a sealing resin sealing the switching element; and a gate terminal, a source terminal and a drain terminal exposed from the sealing resin to produce a discrete package as taught by Ozaki ([0110]).
In re Claim 14, Tamari discloses all limitations of Claim 143 except for a sealing resin sealing the switching element; and a gate terminal, a source terminal and a drain terminal exposed from the sealing resin.
Ozaki teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 27), comprising: the switching element 1210; a sealing resin 1231 sealing the switching element 1210; and a gate terminal 1226g, a source terminal 1226s and a drain terminal 1226d exposed from the sealing resin 1231 ([0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine teachings of Tamari and Ozaki, and to use the specified a sealing resin sealing the switching element; and a gate terminal, a source terminal and a drain terminal exposed from the sealing resin to produce a discrete package as taught by Ozaki ([0110]).
In re Claim 15, Tamari taken with Ozaki discloses the semiconductor device of Claim 13, further comprising: a gate wiring 1235g connecting the gate pad 1226g and the gate terminal 1232g; a source wiring 1235s connecting the plurality of source pads 1226s and the source terminal 1232s; and a drain wiring 1235d connecting the plurality of drain pads 1226d and the drain terminal 1232d, wherein a connection area of the source wiring 1235s is greater than a connection area of the drain wiring 1235d (Ozaki: Fig. 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893