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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/25/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further searches and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hoegerl et.al. (US-20210088600A1) and Onneby et. al. (US-20060145119A1) as shown in the following section.
.
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 1-9, 12-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoegerl et.al. (US-20210088600A1, hereinafter Hoegerl), and in view of Onneby et. al. (US-20060145119A1, hereinafter Onneby)
Regarding Claim 1.
Hoegerl teaches in Fig.1-3, 17A A semiconductor device (#1700A), comprising:
a chip carrier having two indentations (#48A & #48B) such that a measurement current takes an S-shaped course along the chip carrier (#2); a semiconductor chip (#12A& #12B Hall sensor elements [0062-0063]) arranged on the chip carrier and configured to measure the measurement current;
an intermediate layer (#6/#8…etc) arranged between the chip carrier and the semiconductor chip;
an encapsulation material (#18) at least partially encapsulating the semiconductor chip;
Because Hoegerl’s busbar carries the current to be measured and is connected to the elevated potential of the circuit being monitored while the sensor chip operates at a lower signal-level potential, and electrical voltage different between the chip carrier and the semiconductor chip necessarily exists during operation and necessarily produces an electric field across the intervening dielectric. Hoegerl therefore teaches that
wherein an electrical voltage difference between the chip carrier and the semiconductor chip produces an electric field.
Hoegerl does not explicitly disclose filler particles embedded in the intermediate layer, wherein the filler particles comprise a semiconductor material with a band gap in a range from 2.3 eV to 3.6 eV2, and wherein the filler particles are configured to reduce an electric field strength of the electric field.
Onneby, however, teaches a field-grading material comprising a polymer matrix in which semiconducting filler particles are dispersed, the preferred filler particles comprising zinc oxide or silicon carbide. It is well established in the art that zin oxide is a semiconductor material having a band gap of approximately 3.3eV, and the common silicon carbide polytypes are semiconductor materials having band gaps of approximately 2.36eV to 3.26 eV, each falling within the claimed range of 2.3eV to 3.5eV. Onneby further teaches that the resulting composite exhibits a nonlinear resistance that decreases with increasing electric field, that this behavior grades the electric potential and renders the potential distribution more uniform, and that it thereby reduces harmful local electrical stresses in regions of concentrated electric field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoegerl’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Onneby, as identified above, in order to reduce field crowding, leakage-related stress and isolation failure while retaining Hoegerl’s compact galvanically isolated current-sensor package. The combination substitutes a known field-grading dielectric composite for Hoegerl’s ordinary polymer dielectric and yields the predictable reduction of local electric-field strength.
The combination of Hoegerl and Onneby thus teaches filler particles embedded in the intermediate layer, wherein the filler particles comprise a semiconductor material with a band gap in a range from 2.3 eV to 3.6 eV2, and wherein the filler particles are configured to reduce an electric field strength of the electric field.
Regarding Claim 2.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles comprise at least one of zinc oxide or silicon carbide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby with the teachings of Onneby, as identified above, to obtain Onneby’s known nonlinear field-grading response while preserving the layer’s insulating/package function.
Regarding Claim 3.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby teaches the ZnO and SiC, identified as the preferred semiconducting filler materials, inherently produce nonlinear, field-dependent conductivity in polymer composites. And the onset of the nonlinear resistance is explicitly described as tunable through particle size selection and is shown in Fig.5 to increase with decreasing particle size, providing the skilled artisan with clear design guidance for achieving a threshold in the range around 5 V/um. And resistivity vs filler concentration data (Fig.2) demonstrate conductivity behavior spanning the broadly claimed 10−16 S/m to 10−2 S/m range. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Therefore combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles are configured to increase an electrical conductivity of the intermediate layer into a range from 10-16 S/m to 10-2 S/m upon an increase in the electric field strength to a value of more than 5 V/pm.
Regarding Claim 4.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 3,
Onneby further disclose wherein the increase in the electrical conductivity is configured to reduce the electric field strength at positions of the filler particles.
This limitation recites only the physically inevitable and directly documented consequence of the conductivity increase already established in Claim 3, and does not introduce any additional patentable distinction. This result is physically inevitable from the governing electromagnetic constitutive relation where in a dielectric medium containing locally conductive filler particles, when the conductivity at a filler particle position increases in response to an elevated electric field, the local field at that same position necessarily decreases for a given current density. Accordingly, claim 4 recites only the inherent physical consequence of the prior art combination, no inventive step is present.
Regarding Claim 5.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby provides ZnO-filled polymer examples at multiple substantial volume fractions, including about 12, 15, and 28 vol% ([0028]). For dense ZnO or SiC particles in a lower-density polymer, there disclose compositions fall within, or at minimum render obvious by routine selections, the broad 1-99 wt% interval. A skilled artisan would have selected an in-range loading to balance field-grading effectiveness, particle dispersion, and processability in Hoegerl’s intermediate layer.
Therefore the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein a proportion of the filler particles in the intermediate layer has a value in a range from 1 percent by weight to 99 percent by weight.
Regarding Claim 6.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles have maximum dimensions in a range from 1 pm to 300 pm. (Fig.5 [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby with the teachings of Onneby, as identified above, because it provides a demonstrated nonlinear response while remaining dispersible in the polymer matrix.
Regarding Claim 7.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby places field-grading material where electrical stress is enhanced by electrode geometry, including shield or electrode edges , and explains that the material is used to smooth the potential distribution in cush high-field regions ([0003-0005], [0041-0042]). It would have been obvious to apply that teaching at Hoegerl’s busbar indentations and chip isolation geometry so that filler acts where geometric field enhancement is greatest.
Therefore the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles are arranged in a region in which the electric field strength is increased due to a geometric shape of at least one of the semiconductor chip, the intermediate layer, the chip carrier, or the encapsulation material.
Regarding Claim 8.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl’s dielectric/intermediate structure extends beneath and around the sensor-chip footprint in the current-sensor package (Fig.1-4, Fig. 17A, [0026, 0031-34]) A substantially particle-filled intermediate layer as taught by Onneby includes particles at the semiconductor chip edge or tip. It would have been obvious to extend the field-grading filler to that edge region because conductor and dielectric edges are predictable locations of field crowding.
Therefore the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles are arranged at least at one of an edge of the semiconductor chip or a tip of the semiconductor chip.
Regarding Claim 9.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl’s encapsulation surrounds the chip and meets the intermediate/attachment structure adjacent the chip. Filling that intermediate layer according to Onneby places particles in the region where the chip, encapsulation, and intermediate layer are adjacent. It would have been obvious to field-grade that material-junction region to reduce interfacial field concentration and leakage and thereby improve package isolation reliability.
Regarding Claim 12.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl expressly uses the dielectric layer to provide electrical or galvanic isolation between the sensor chip and the current-carrying busbar ([0029 ,0031-0033]). Onneby supplies the embedded semiconducting field-grading particles for that dielectric layer. It would have been obvious to embed the filler particles in the dielectric layer to improve package isolation reliability.
Therefore the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein: the intermediate layer comprises a dielectric layer, which is configured to provide galvanic isolation between the chip carrier and the semiconductor chip, and the filler particles are embedded in the dielectric layer.
Regarding Claim 13.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl disclose an attachment material between the chip and carrier and identifies die-attach film and adhesive, including polymeric adhesive materials, as suitable choices.[0034]). Onneby teaches dispersing the field-grading filler in a polymer matrix ([0025,0031-0032]). It would have been obvious to use the filled polymer as, or within, Hoegerl’s adhesive intermediate layer to obtain both mechanical fixation and field grading in the same layer.
Therefore the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby teaches wherein: the intermediate layer comprises an adhesive layer, which is configured to fix the semiconductor chip to the chip carrier, and the filler particles are embedded in the adhesive layer.
Regarding Claim 14.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl further teaches wherein the encapsulation material comprises at least one of a molding compound, an epoxy, an imide, a thermoplastic, a thermoset polymer, a polymer mixture, a glob-top material or a laminate. (Hoegerl identifies suitable encapsulation materials #18 including mold compound, epoxy, silicon, polyimide, thermoset, thermoplastic, and related electrically insulating package materials [0035], meeting the recited material alternatives.)
Regarding Claim 15.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl further teaches wherein: the chip carrier comprises a current conductor that is configured to carry a measurement current, and the semiconductor chip is part of a current sensor that is configured to detect a strength of the measurement current. (Hoegerl’s chip carrier is a busbar/current conductor carrying the measurement current, and its semiconductor chip include Hall sensing element that detect the current-produced magnetic field to determine current strength [0028-0029], [0062-0063] Fig. 17A)
Regarding Claim 17.
Hoegerl teaches in Fig.1-3, 17A A semiconductor device, comprising: a chip carrier having two indentations (#48A & #48B) such that a measurement current takes an S-shaped course along the chip carrier (#2);
a semiconductor chip (#12A/#12B) arranged on the chip carrier and configured to measure the measurement current;
an intermediate layer (#6/#8 ..etc) arranged between the chip carrier and the semiconductor chip;
an encapsulation material (#18)at least partially encapsulating the semiconductor chip;
Hoegerl does not explicitly disclose
and filler particles embedded in the intermediate layer,
which are configured to increase an electrical conductivity of the intermediate layer into a range from 10−16 S/m to 10−2 S/m upon an increase in an electric field strength to a value of more than 5 V/μm.
However, Onneby teaches the ZnO and SiC, identified as the preferred semiconducting filler materials, inherently produce nonlinear, field-dependent conductivity in polymer composites. And the onset of the nonlinear resistance is explicitly described as tunable through particle size selection and is shown in Fig.5 to increase with decreasing particle size, providing the skilled artisan with clear design guidance for achieving a threshold in the range around 5 V/um. And resistivity vs filler concentration data (Fig.2) demonstrate conductivity behavior spanning the broadly claimed 10−16 S/m to 10−2 S/m range. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Regarding Claim 18.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 17,
Onneby further teaches wherein the filler particles comprise a semiconductor material with a band gap in a range from 2.3 eV to 3.6 eV. (Onneby’s preferred ZnO and SiC fillers are semiconductor materials having ordinary band gaps within 2.3-3.6 eV , satisfying claim 18.)
Regarding Claim 19.
Hoegerl teaches in Fig.1-3 and Fig.17A A method for producing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: arranging an intermediate layer on a chip carrier having two indentations (#48A & #48B) such that a measurement current takes an S-shaped course along the chip carrier; arranging a semiconductor chip (#12A/#12B) on the intermediate layer (#6/#8 ..etc); and encapsulating the semiconductor chip with an encapsulation material (#18),
Hoegerl does not explicitly disclose wherein filler particles, comprising a semiconductor material with a band gap in a range from 2.3 eV to 3.6 eV, are embedded in the intermediate layer.
Onneby, however, teaches a field-grading material comprising a polymer matrix in which semiconducting filler particles are dispersed, the preferred filler particles comprising zinc oxide or silicon carbide. It is well established in the art that zin oxide is a semiconductor material having a band gap of approximately 3.3eV, and the common silicon carbide polytypes are semiconductor materials having band gaps of approximately 2.36eV to 3.26 eV, each falling within the claimed range of 2.3eV to 3.5eV. Onneby further teaches that the resulting composite exhibits a nonlinear resistance that decreases with increasing electric field, that this behavior grades the electric potential and renders the potential distribution more uniform, and that it thereby reduces harmful local electrical stresses in regions of concentrated electric field.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoegerl’s semiconductor device with the teachings of Onneby, as identified above, in order to reduce field crowding, leakage-related stress and isolation failure while retaining Hoegerl’s compact galvanically isolated current-sensor package. The combination substitutes a known field-grading dielectric composite for Hoegerl’s ordinary polymer dielectric and yields the predictable reduction of local electric-field strength.
The combination of Hoegerl and Onneby thus teaches wherein filler particles, comprising a semiconductor material with a band gap in a range from 2.3 eV to 3.6 eV, are embedded in the intermediate layer.
Regarding Claim 20.
Hoegerl A method for producing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: arranging an intermediate layer on a chip carrier having two indentations (#48A & #48B) such that a measurement current takes an S-shaped course along the chip carrier; arranging a semiconductor chip (#12A/#12B) on the intermediate layer (#6/#8 ..etc); and encapsulating the semiconductor chip with an encapsulation material (#18),
Hoegerl does not explicitly disclose
and filler particles embedded in the intermediate layer,
which are configured to increase an electrical conductivity of the intermediate layer into a range from 10−16 S/m to 10−2 S/m upon an increase in an electric field strength to a value of more than 5 V/μm.
However, Onneby teaches the ZnO and SiC, identified as the preferred semiconducting filler materials, inherently produce nonlinear, field-dependent conductivity in polymer composites. And the onset of the nonlinear resistance is explicitly described as tunable through particle size selection and is shown in Fig.5 to increase with decreasing particle size, providing the skilled artisan with clear design guidance for achieving a threshold in the range around 5 V/um. And resistivity vs filler concentration data (Fig.2) demonstrate conductivity behavior spanning the broadly claimed 10−16 S/m to 10−2 S/m range. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Regarding Claim 21
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Onneby teaches that its nonlinear field-grading composite makes the potential distribution more uniform and reduces local electric-field stress ([0003-0005, 0035, 0041-0042]). Under the conventional field-line representation, a lower local field magnitude corresponds to a lower line density ---i.e. field lines represented farther apart --- relative to the ungraded structure. Thus the claimed field-line-spreading function is the predictable physical consequence of the Hoegerl-Onneby combination, even though Onneby does not use the exact words “further apart”
Therefore Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches wherein the filler particles are configured to spread electric field lines of the electric field further apart.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoegerl et.al. (US-20210088600A1, hereinafter Hoegerl), and in view of Onneby et. al. (US-20060145119A1, hereinafter Onneby), and further in view of Brunschwiler et. al. (US-2013/0062789-A1, hereinafter Brunschwiler).
Regarding Claim 11.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Hoegerl modified by Onneby does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler particles are distributed homogeneously and completely throughout an entire portion of intermediate layer.
However, Brunschwiler teaches in Fig.2 and in related text wherein the filler particles (#9) are distributed homogeneously and completely throughout an entire portion of intermediate layer (#4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hoegerl and Onneby with the teachings of Brunschwiler, as identified above, as homogeneous distribution of filler particles is a well-recognized manufacturing objective in filled polymer systems, as it ensures consistent material properties throughout the layer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoegerl et.al. (US-20210088600A1, hereinafter Hoegerl), and in view of Onneby et. al. (US-20060145119A1, hereinafter Onneby), and further in view of Melanson (US-8963535B1, hereinafter Melanson)
Regarding Claim 16.
Hoegerl modified by Onneby teaches The semiconductor device as claimed in claim 1,
Melanson discloses an integrated circuit having a Hall sensor that sense the magnetic field of a controlled current and a controller that use the sensed-current information to control a switch. The controller generates a gate-drive/control signal for the controlled transistor of FET. A skilled artisan would have integrated Melanson’s current-sensing feedback and gate-control circuitry into Hoegerl’s sensor chip to provide compact close-loop switch control, reduce external components and sensing loss, and improve correspondence between measured current and gate control. This predictable integration makes the chip at least part of a gate driver, as recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights