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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 03/26/2026. Claims 1-19 were pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 11-19 remain withdrawn.
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 1-10 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 limitation “an underside of each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures contacts, in a region of increased thickness of a respective stepped metal structure, an electrical contact of the electrical contacts on the upper side of the electrical component” in lines 14-16, which is not clear whether the recited limitation applies to all stepped metal structures recited in claim 1.
In particular, the specification describes stepped metal structures 71 as contacting the first metallization layer 22 of the ceramic circuit carrier 2, while stepped metal structure 72 and 73 contact electrical contacts 33 and 34 on the upper side of the electrical component 3. See, e.g., paragraphs [0053]-[0055]. Thus, the specification distinguishes stepped metal structure 71 from stepped metal structures 72 and 73 with respect to the recited contact relationship.
Further, Applicant’s remarks discuss only stepped metal structures 72 and 73 as satisfying the recited limitation, and to not explain how stepped metal structure 71 satisfies the limitation requiring contact with “an electrical contact of the electrical contacts on the upper side of the electrical component”.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 1 requires each stepped metal structure, including stepped metal structure 71, to contact an electrical contact on the upper side of the electrical component, or whether only some of the stepped metal structures are intended to satisfy the recited limitation. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is unclear.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “an underside of each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures” will be interpreted as “an underside of at least one stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murayama et al. (US 2022/0028774; hereinafter ‘Murayama’).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama teaches an electrical module (10, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0026]) comprising:
a ceramic circuit carrier (20, [0033]);
an electrical component (30, [0027]) having an upper side (a surface of 30 facing away from 20; hereinafter ‘30T’) and an underside (a surface of 30 facing 20; hereinafter ‘30B’), wherein the underside of the electrical component (30B) is arranged on the ceramic circuit carrier (20), and wherein the upper side of the electrical component (30T) provides electrical contacts (32 and 33, [0031]);
a substrate (a substrate including 40 and 50, [0027]; hereinafter ‘SUB’) in which the ceramic circuit carrier (20) and the electrical component (30) are arranged, wherein the substrate (SUB) comprises a potting material (50 being an encapsulation resin, [0028]); and
stepped metal structures (61 and 62, [0054]; hereinafter ‘SMS’) arranged on an upper side of the electrical module (a surface of 10 facing away from 20; hereinafter ‘10T’),
wherein each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures (61 of SMS) has regions of different thickness (shown in Figs. 1A and 1B),
wherein an upper side of each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures (a surface of SMS facing away from 30; hereinafter ‘SMST’) provides an electrical contact area (SMST defining electrical contact areas, [0054]; hereinafter ‘ECA’) of the electrical module (10),
wherein an underside of each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures (a surface of SMS facing 30; hereinafter ‘SMSB’) contacts, in a region of increased thickness of a respective stepped metal structure (a region having a greater thickness than an adjacent region of SMS) an electrical contact of the electrical contacts (electrical contact of 32) on the upper side of the electrical component (30T), and
wherein the underside of each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures (SMSB) contacts, in a region of reduced thickness of the respective stepped metal structure (the adjacent region of 61 having a smaller thickness), a surface of the substrate (a surface of SUB).
Regarding claim 2, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 1,
wherein the ceramic circuit carrier (20, Fig. 1A) has an insulating ceramic layer (20 including an insulating ceramic layer, such as Al2O3, ZrO2, AlN, or Si3N4, [0033]) and a first metallization layer (21, [0035]) arranged on the upper side of the insulating ceramic layer (the upper side of 20), and
wherein the electrical component (30) is arranged on and electrically connected to an upper side of the first metallization layer (the upper side of 21 facing 30; hereinafter ‘21T’).
Regarding claim 3, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 2, further comprising:
a further stepped metal structure (62 of SMS, Fig. 1A, [0054]) that provides, on an upper side of the further stepped metal structure (a surface of 62 facing away from 30; hereinafter ‘62T’), a further electrical contact area of the electrical module (62T forming ECA of 10),
wherein an underside of the further stepped metal structure (a surface of 62 facing 30; hereinafter ‘62B’), in a region of increased thickness (in a region having a greater thickness than an adjacent region of 62), contacts the first metallization layer of the ceramic circuit carrier (21) or a spacer (71, [0044]) arranged thereon.
Regarding claim 4, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 3,
wherein the further stepped metal structure (62, Fig. 1A) directly contacts the first metallization layer (21 through continuous conductive portions V4, 75, and 72 without intervening insulating material, [0048, 0049, 0065]), and
wherein the further stepped metal structure (62) has a region of increased thickness (a thickened region of 62 at V4, [0065]) that is higher than regions of increased thickness of the stepped metal structures (a thickened region of 61 at V1).
Regarding claim 5, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 3,
wherein the electrical module (10, Fig. 2) comprises a total of three stepped metal structures (61A, 61B, and 62; hereinafter ‘TT’) that provide three electrical contact areas of the electrical module (three electrical contact areas by TT),
wherein a first stepped metal structure (61A) and a second stepped metal structures (61B) of the three stepped metal (TT) contact the upper side of the electrical component (30T) in order to supply a gate potential (33 is a gate electrode, [0031]) and a source potential (32 is a source electrode), and
wherein a third stepped metal structure (62) of the three stepped metal structures (TT) contacts the first metallization layer (21) in order to supply a drain potential (31 is a drain electrode).
Regarding claim 6, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 1, wherein the stepped metal structures (61, Fig. 1A) are formed from a metal foil (61 is metal or metal alloy, [0055]) that is plane on an upper side of the metal foil and stepped on an underside of the metal foil (shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 1, wherein each stepped metal structure of the stepped metal structures (61, Fig. 1A) comprises a plurality of copper layers connected to one another in a materially bonded fashion (61 is copper or copper alloy, [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 1, wherein the electrical component (30, Fig. 1A) is a semiconductor component (30 is a semiconductor elements, [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 9, wherein the semiconductor component (30, Fig. 1A) is a power semiconductor (30 is a power semiconductor element, [0030]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (US 2022/0028774) in view of Fuergut et al. (EP 3300105A1; hereinafter ‘Fuergut’).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama teaches the electrical module of claim 1, wherein a region (a region between 30T and the underside ECAB, Fig. 1A) between the upper side of the electrical component (30T) and the underside of the associated electrical contact area (the underside of ECAB) is filled with the potting material (50 being an encapsulation resin).
Murayama does not teach the electrical module wherein a spacing between the upper side of the electrical component and the underside of an associated electrical contact area formed on the upper side of the electrical module is greater than 250 μm.
Fuergut teaches an electrical module (7, FIG. 23, [0014, 0026]) wherein a spacing (the spacing between the lower surface corresponding to d34 and the lower surface of 3, [0075]) between the upper side of the electrical component (the lower surface corresponding to d34) and the underside of an associated electrical contact area (the lower surface of 3) formed on the upper side of the electrical module (the upper side of 7).
Although, Fuergut does not explicitly teach that the spacing is greater than 250 μm.
Fuergut, however, provides the metal plate 3 having a thickness in the range of about 100 μm to 2000 μm, from which it can be reasonably inferred that a resulting step height or spacing formed by a reduced-thickness portion would be on the order of hundreds of micrometers [0024].
As taught by Fuergut, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Murayama to obtain and achieve the electrical module wherein a spacing between the upper side of the electrical component and the underside of an associated electrical contact area formed on the upper side of the electrical module is greater than 250 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Fuergut in combination with Murayama due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Claim 1
Applicant submits, in page 12 of Remark, that “the underside of the structure 61 in a reduced thickness region contacts a substrate body 41 and adhesive layer 42. This substrate is not a substrate composed of a potting material. Instead, this particular substrate body 41 is formed from an insulative resin. The Office has identified element 50 of the semiconductor device comprising a potting material. (Office Action, p. 5.) This particular component 50 is not in contact with the underside of the structure 61. As such, there is no teaching or suggestion within Murayama regarding a stepped metal structure that contacts a surface of the substrate having the potting material in a region of reduced thickness of the respective stepped metal structure, as clarified in claim 1”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the Office Action, the rejection interprets the claimed substrate as corresponding to the surrounding structural body of semiconductor device 10 in which an upper substrate 40 is arranged together with encapsulation resin 50 comprising a potting material [0027-0028]. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 4
Applicant submits, in pages 12-13 of Remark, that “There is no discussion or suggestion within Murayama regarding an underside of any stepped metal structure being in direct contact with the metallization layer”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Murayama teaches a continuous conductive structure extending from stepped metal structure 62 through conductive portions V4, 75, and 72 to the metallization layer 21without any intervening insulating material. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Murayama teaches the claimed direct contact relationship between the further stepped metal structure and the first metallization layer.
Further, claim 4 does not exclude conductive portions extending between the further stepped metal structure and the first metallization layer. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 6/22/26
Prosecution Insights