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 Group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
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 1-20 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 limitaiton “wherein the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant are dimensioned so as to keep a first predefined minimum distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because according to MPEP 2173.05(b), II, a claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
Claim 2 recites the limitaiton “wherein the first predefined minimum distance is a specified minimum insulation distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitaiton renders the claim indefinite because “a specified minimum insulation distance” is not defined.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first predefined minimum distance is based on a specified electrical creepage distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a specified electrical creepage distance” is not defined.
Claim 4 recites the limitaiton “wherein the first predefined minimum distance is based on a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant” are not defined.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the first predefined minimum distance is defined according to the Specification IEC 60664.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitaiton renders the claim indefinite. Moreover, the term “the Specification IEC 60664” is not defined by the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitaiton “the first predefined minimum distance is based on a surface quality of the encapsulant.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a surface quality of the encapsulant” is not defined.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant are dimensioned so as to keep a second predefined minimum distance between the first portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because according to MPEP 2173.05(b), II, a claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
Claim 11 recites the limitaiton “wherein the second predefined minimum distance is a specified minimum insulation distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitaiton renders the claim indefinite because “a specified minimum insulation distance” is not defined.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the second predefined minimum distance is based on a specified electrical creepage distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a specified electrical creepage distance” is not defined.
Claim 13 recites the limitaiton “wherein the second predefined minimum distance is based on a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant” are not defined.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the second predefined minimum distance is defined according to the Specification IEC 60664.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitaiton renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitaiton “the second predefined minimum distance is based on a surface quality of the encapsulant.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because “a surface quality of the encapsulant” is not defined.
Claims 2-20 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwade (US 2007/00520272, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Iwade discloses a semiconductor package (100) (Figs. 1A, 1B), comprising: a first substrate (3) comprising a first upper main face (Fig.1A) and a second lower main face (3a); a semiconductor chip (1) comprising a first upper main face and a second lower main face (Fig.1A), the second lower main face of the semiconductor chip disposed on the first upper main face of the first substrate (Fig.1A); a leadframe (8) comprising at least one lead (8d), wherein the at least one lead is disposed on a side of the semiconductor package (Fig.1B), and the at least one lead is electrically connected with the semiconductor chip (9); and an encapsulant (7) applied to the first substrate, the semiconductor chip and the leadframe (Fig.1A), the encapsulant comprising a first upper main face and a second lower main face, wherein the second lower main face of the encapsulant comprises a first portion extending in a first plane, a second portion extending in a second plane (Fig.1A), a third portion extending in a first transition zone between the first plane and the second plane, and a fourth portion extending in a second transition zone between the second plane and the at least one lead (8d), wherein both the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the second lower main face of the first substrate extend in the first plane, the first plane (Fig.1A) forming a lower heat dissipation surface of the semiconductor package, ([0039]), wherein the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant are dimensioned so as to keep a first predefined minimum distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead (Fig. 1A, d, t, [0043]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Iwade discloses wherein the first predefined minimum distance is a specified minimum insulation distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead ([0007], see 112 rejections above)
Regarding claim 3, Iwade discloses wherein the first predefined minimum distance is based on a specified electrical creepage distance between the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead ([0007]; see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 7, Iwade discloses wherein the first portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant is completely surrounded by the second portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant (Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Iwade discloses wherein the first transition zone between the first plane and the second plane comprises a step-profile, or a staircase profile, or a ramp profile (Fig.1A).
Regarding claim 9, Iwade discloses wherein the second transition zone between the second plane and the at least one lead comprises a ramp-profile (Fig.1A).
Regarding claim 10, Iwade discloses an electrically conductive spacer layer (Fig. 1A, numeral 6) comprising a first upper main face and a second lower main face, the first lower main face of the spacer layer being disposed on the first upper main face of the semiconductor chip; and a second substrate (4) comprising a first upper main face and a second lower main face, the second lower main face of the second substrate being disposed on the first upper main face of the spacer layer; wherein the first upper main face of the encapsulant comprises a first portion extending in a fourth plane, a second portion extending in a third plane, a third portion extending in a third transition zone between the fourth plane and the third plane, and a fourth portion extending in a fourth transition zone between the third plane and the at least one lead, wherein both the first portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant and the first upper main face of the second substrate extend in the fourth plane, the fourth plane forming an upper heat dissipation surface of the semiconductor package, wherein the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant are dimensioned so as to keep a second predefined minimum distance between the first portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead (Fig.1A).
Regarding claim 11, Iwade discloses wherein the second predefined minimum distance is a specified minimum insulation distance between the first portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead ([0007]; note: 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 12, Iwade discloses wherein the second predefined minimum distance is based on a specified electrical creepage distance between the first portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant and the at least one lead ([0007]; note 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 16, Iwade discloses wherein the first portion, the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the first upper main face of the encapsulant are symmetrically arranged with the first portion, the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the second lower main face of the encapsulant (Fig.1A, numeral 100).
Regarding claim 17, Iwade discloses wherein the semiconductor chip comprises one of a silicon carbide power transistor, a silicon power transistor, or a gallium nitride power transistor (Fig. 1A; power transistor 1).
Regarding claim 18, Iwade discloses wherein the semiconductor chip comprises a power transistor designed for automotive applications ([0017]).
Regarding claim 20, Iwade discloses wherein the first substrate comprises at least one of a copper alloy, a copper composite, an aluminum alloy, or an aluminum composite ([0020]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwade.
Regarding claim 4, Iwade does not disclose wherein the first predefined minimum distance is based on a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Iwade does not disclose wherein the first predefined minimum distance is defined according to the Specification IEC 60664 specifying dimensioning of electrical creepage distances of functional insulation.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Iwade does not disclose wherein the first predefined minimum distance is based on a surface quality of the encapsulant.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Iwade does not disclose wherein the second predefined minimum distance is based on a given voltage, a pollution degree and a material of the encapsulant.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Iwade does not disclose wherein the second predefined minimum distance is defined according to the Specification IEC 60664 specifying dimensioning of electrical creepage distances of functional insulation.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Iwade does not disclose wherein the second predefined minimum distance is based on a surface quality of the encapsulant.
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the first predefined minimum distance for the purpose of preventing creepage dielectric breakdown (Iwade, [0007]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwade as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hable (US 2018/122720).
Regarding claim 19, Iwade discloses wherein the first substrate comprises:, a first metallic layer disposed on the first upper main face of the insulator layer, and a second metallic layer disposed on the second lower main face of the insulator layer, the second metallic layer having a first upper main face and a second lower main face, wherein the second lower main face of the first substrate corresponds to the second lower main face of the second metallic layer of the first substrate (Fig. 1A).
Iwade does not disclose an insulator layer having a first upper main face and a second lower main face.
Hable however discloses an insulator layer having a first upper main face and a second lower main face (Fig.1, numeral 104, [0067]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention Iwade with Hable to have an insulator layer having a first upper main face and a second lower main face because the substrate having an insulator layer having a first upper main face and a second lower main face is commonly used for power packages.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights