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 Claims
By preliminary amendment filed 11/08/23, Applicant cancelled Claims 1-10 and filed Claims 11-20.
Claims 11-20 are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features cancelled from the claims:
“the capacitor component”… “based on a plurality of deep trench silicon capacitors”, as Claim 12 recites (e.g., a plurality of deep trench capacitors shall be shown).
“a capacitor component” that “is stacked on the semiconductor switch and/or on a half bridge”, as Claim 16 recites.
“the capacitor component is provided as an intermediate circuit capacitor for a half-bridge circuit including the semiconductor switch”, as Claim 17 recites (e.g., at least a circuitry with appropriate connections shall be shown).
“the capacitor component and the semiconductor switch integrated into the semiconductor module are embedded in a printed circuit board”, as Claim 18 recites (e.g., embedding into a printed circuit board shall be shown)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0032 of the published application, US 2024/0234392, misspells a number: it states that elements 30 are contacting regions of capacitor electrodes 20 and 25, while all other paragraphs citing “30” identify it as a switch and paragraph 0031 of the published application shows that contacting regions of the capacitor are identified by number 40.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objection
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informality: Claim 20 recites: “an electrically isolated cooling element is respectively provided for each semiconductor switch and/or the capacitor component”. The recitation sounds strange, since Claim 20 depends on Claims 18 and 11, where Claim 18 does not refer to multiple switches, and where Claim 11 recites: “at least one semiconductor switch”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “an electrically isolated cooling element is respectively provided for the at least one semiconductor switch and/or the capacitor component when the module comprises the at least one semiconductor switch or – for each semiconductor switch and/or the capacitor component, when the module comprises more than one semiconductor switches”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 20 was interpreted as:
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 11-12, 14-15, and 17- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2020/0176360) in view of Ryou et al (US 2018/0308638) and Kinzer (US 2016/0247748).
In re Claim 11, Kapusta teaches a semiconductor module (such as a half-bridge circuit, Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0012, 0028), comprising (Fig. 2 and Fig. 5):
a capacitor component (the capacitor in Fig. 2 is not identified by any number, but is shown with the accepted capacitor symbol, the capacitor is coupled to two transistors 36 and 38 in Fig. 2, paragraph 0028, the capacitor is shown by number 118 in Fig. 5, paragraph 0035) and
at least one semiconductor switch – two switches - as transistors 36 and 38 – are shown in Fig. 2 (paragraph 0028), and only one transistor 102 is shown in Fig. 5 (paragraph 0032) wherein
the capacitor is coupled (as shown in Fig. 2) to (obviously existing) contact regions of the semiconductor switch 36 and 38 (in Fig. 2, or to switch 102 in Fig. 5, paragraph 0032), and
both - the capacitor component and the semiconductor switch are integrated into the semiconductor module (as shown in Fig. 5 directed to a portion of the half-bridge - or as shown in Fig. 9 – directed to a half-bridge unit, paragraph 0042).
Kapusta does not teach that the capacitor component has a lateral finger structure, a semiconductor substrate, at least two first electrodes, at least two second electrodes, where the first electrodes and the second electrodes: respectively have identical basic forms, are formed within and/or on the semiconductor substrate alternatingly next to one another at a predefined distance, and are configured to be contacted individually from outside the capacitor component via respective contacting regions. Accordingly, he, obviously, does not teach that at least a portion of the first electrodes and of the second electrodes is electrically connected via respective contacting regions of the capacitor component to respective contacting regions of the semiconductor switch.
Kapusta further does not teach that the semiconductor switch has a lateral finger structure.
Ryou teaches a capacitor component (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0018-0021) that has a lateral finger structure (shown in Fig. 3), a semiconductor substrate 110 (number 110 is shown in Figs. 2 and 4, paragraph 0031), at least two first electrodes 171 (in Fig. 3, paragraph 0073), at least two second electrodes 172 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0073), where the first electrodes 171 and the second electrodes 172: respectively have identical basic forms (a rectangle), are formed within and/or on the semiconductor substrate 110 alternatingly next to one another at a predefined distance, and are configured to be contacted individually from outside the capacitor component via respective contacting regions 191 and 192 (paragraph 0029).
Kinzer teaches a transistor/switch having (Fig. 2A) a lateral finger structure (of source and drain regions 235, 245, paragraph 0064).
Kapusta and Ryou teach analogous arts directed to capacitors, and Kapusta and Kinzer teach analogous arts directed to transistors/switches, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kapusta device in view of the Ryou and Kinzer devices, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Ryou and Kinzer created devices/elements that are successfully used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Kapusta semiconductor module by substituting its switch(s) with switch(es) taught by Kinzer having a lateral finger structure and by substituting the Kapusta capacitor component with the capacitor component of Ryou comprised a lateral finger structure, a semiconductor substrate, at least two first electrodes, at least two second electrodes, the first electrodes and the second electrodes respectively have identical basic forms (a rectangle), are formed within and/or on the semiconductor substrate alternatingly next to one another at a predefined distance, and configured to be contacted individually from outside the capacitor component via respective contacting regions, while connecting at least a portion of the first electrodes and the second electrodes via respective contacting region to respective contacting regions of the semiconductor switch (to enable the circuit of Fig. 2 of Kapusta), wherein these types/structures/shapes of the capacitor component and the switch(s) are preferred by 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 re Claim 12, Kapusta/Ryou/Inoue teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above, with Ryou teaching the capacitor component and the Kinzer teaching the semiconductor switch.
Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer further teaches that:
the semiconductor switch is a GaN semiconductor switch (see Fig. 3 of Kinzer and paragraph 0066), and/or
the capacitor component is formed as a silicon capacitor (Ryou, Figs. 1-4, paragraph 0032) and based on a plurality of deep trench silicon capacitors 140 (Ryou, paragraphs 0036-0039).
Note that Kapusta also teaches GaN transistors as switches (paragraphs 0025-0026, 0028).
In re Claim 14, Kapusta/Ryou/Inoue teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above, with Ryou teaching the capacitor component comprised a plurality of first and second electrodes (171 and 172) that, through contacting regions (191 and 192) contact to respective contacting regions of the semiconductor switch.
Ryou further teaches (Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3) that:
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
339
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least electrical connections of the first electrodes 171 of the capacitor component to the semiconductor switch are arranged substantially parallel to one another, and
at least electrical connections of the second electrodes 172 of the capacitor component to the semiconductor switch are arranged substantially parallel to one another.
In re Claim 15, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above.
Kapusta further teaches that the capacitor component and the semiconductor switch are directly and/or indirectly electrically connected to one another using bonding wires, and/or conductor paths, and/or a soldered connection, and/or a sintered connection, and/or a stamped sheet metal, and/or vias – Kapusta teaches vias (paragraph 0039).
In re Claim 17, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above.
Kapusta further teaches (Figs. 2 and 5) that:
the capacitor component is provided as an intermediate circuit capacitor for a half-bridge circuit including the semiconductor switch and a further semiconductor switch (as shown in Fig. 2), and/or
resistances of metallization planes of the capacitor component are adapted in accordance with desired damping properties for the half-bridge circuit, and/or
a gate driver 116 (Fig. 5, paragraph 0032) for the half-bridge circuit is integrated into the semiconductor module and is monolithically integrated into at least one of the semiconductor switch 102 and the further semiconductor switch of the half-bridge circuit (the last integration is shown in Fig, 9, paragraph 0042).
In re Claim 18, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above.
Kapusta further teaches (Fig. 5) that the capacitor component 118 and the semiconductor switch 102 integrated into the semiconductor module are: embedded in a printed circuit board via an embedding technology, and/or encapsulated using a housing – they are encapsulated using encapsulant 140 (paragraph 0035).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer in view of Borland et al. (US 2008/0316723).
In re Claim 13, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above, where the module uses the semiconductor switch of Kinzer and the capacitor component of Ryou, the capacitor components comprised a plurality of trench capacitors.
Kinzer further teaches that a pitch of the semiconductor switch is in a range from 50 to 400 µm, which is within the claimed range of 250 µm to 500 µm. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer does not teach that a pitch of structures of the capacitor component is in a range of 250 µm to 500 µm and that the pitches of the capacitor component and the semiconductor switch are substantially identical.
Borland teaches a capacitor component comprised a plurality of electrically connected capacitors, where a pitch between capacitors is less than 630 µm (e.g., less than 25 mils, paragraph 0056).
Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer and Borland teach analogous arts directed to a capacitor component comprised a plurality of electrically connected capacitors, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer device in view of the Borland device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Borland’ capacitor component successfully functions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer device by creating the Ryou capacitor component with the pitch less than 630 µm (per Borland), which incorporates the claimed pitch range of 250 µm to 500 µm, in order to enable such parameter as the capacitor pitch.
Although not taught by Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer/Borland, it may have been further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the pitches in the capacitor component and the semiconductor switch as being substantially identical, when desired: In accordance with MPEP, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer in view of Takao et al. (US 2016/0285445).
In re Claim 16, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above, including the capacitor component and the switch or the half-bridge formed from the two semiconductor switches and monolithically integrated (see Figs. 2, 5, 7, and 9 of Kapusta), but does not teach that the capacitor component is stacked on the semiconductor switch and/or on a half bridge formed from two semiconductor switches.
Takao teaches (Figs. 1A. 1B, and 2, paragraphs 0024-0034) a semiconductor module comprised a capacitor component 14a stacked on a semiconductor switch 13a.
Kapusta and Takao teach analogous arts directed to a module comprised a semiconductor switch and a capacitor, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kapusta device in view of Takao device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Takao created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer module of Claim 11 by ceating the switch and the capacitor component in a stack (per Takao), when it is desirable to reduce a horizontal dimension of the semiconductor module.
In re Claim 19, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 11 as cited above, including the at least one semiconductor switch and the capacitor component, but does not teach a cooling element which is thermally coupled to the at least one semiconductor switch and/or the capacitor component.
Takao teaches (Figs. 1A-1B, paragraphs 0024-0035) a semiconductor module comprised a cooling element 15a which is thermally coupled to the at least one semiconductor switch 13a.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer of Claim 11 by adding to the module a cooling element that is thermally coupled to the at least the semiconductor switch (per Takao), wherein it is desirable to remove the heat from the semiconductor switch.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer in view of Tanimoto (US 2017/0154877).
In re Claim 20, Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer teaches the semiconductor module according to Claim 18 as cited above, including the at least one semiconductor switch and the capacitor component, but does not teach an electrically isolated cooling element is respectively provided for each semiconductor switch and/or the capacitor component.
Tanimoto teaches a semiconductor module comprised (Fig. 3) an electrically isolated colling element 27, 25 (paragraph 0066) that is respectively provided for each semiconductor switch 13HT and 13LT.
Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer and Tanimoto teach analogous arts directed to a semiconductor module comprised at least a semiconductor switch, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer device in view of the Tanimoto device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Tanimoto 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 Kapusta/Ryou/Kinzer semiconductor module of Claim 18 by providing for each semiconductor switch an electrically isolated cooling element (per Tanimoto) for removing a heat from the semiconductor switches.
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: 01/14/26