Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/504,463

POWER SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2023
Examiner
AU, BAC H
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Infineon Technologies AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
660 granted / 817 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
848
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 817 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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) 1-6 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattiuzzo (U.S. Pub. 2014/0199861) in view of Wurster (U.S. Pat. 5564954). Regarding claim 1, Mattiuzzo [Figs.3-14] discloses a power semiconductor module arrangement, comprising: a housing [410] comprising a plurality of through holes [440]; a substrate [408] forming a ground surface of the housing; and a plurality of terminal elements [430] mechanically and electrically connected to the substrate [408] [Fig.4], wherein a first end [232] of each of the plurality of terminal elements is arranged inside the housing and connected to the substrate [Para.26], wherein each of the plurality of terminal elements extends from the substrate in a vertical direction perpendicular to a top surface of the substrate through one of the plurality of through holes [440] to the outside of the housing, such that a second end of each of the plurality of terminal elements is arranged outside of the housing [Figs.4,6]; wherein each of the plurality of terminal elements comprises a holding element [236,244,242] arranged between the first end and the second end [Fig.2]. Mattiuzzo [Figs.2-4,9-12] appears to disclose wherein each of the plurality of holding elements exerts a force on the housing, thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. Mattiuzzo fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of holding elements exerts a force on the housing, thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. However, Wurster [Figs1-13] discloses a module comprising terminal elements [182] comprising a holding element [190], wherein each of the plurality of holding elements [190] exerts a force on the housing [186] [Fig.13], thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. It would have been obvious to provide terminal elements comprising a holding element as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 13, Mattiuzzo [Figs.3-14] discloses a method for assembling a power semiconductor module arrangement, the method comprising: connecting a plurality of terminal elements [430] to a substrate [408]; and arranging a housing [410] comprising a plurality of through holes [440] on the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of terminal elements extends from the substrate in a vertical direction perpendicular to a top surface of the substrate [Fig.4], wherein arranging the housing on the substrate comprises inserting each of the plurality of terminal elements [430] into a different one of the plurality of through holes [440], such that a first end [232] of each of the plurality of terminal elements is arranged inside the housing and connected to the substrate and a second end [238] of each of the plurality of terminal elements is arranged outside of the housing [Fig.4], wherein each of the plurality of terminal elements comprises a holding element [236,244,242] arranged between the first end and the second end. Mattiuzzo [Figs.2-4,9-12] appears to disclose wherein after arranging the housing on the substrate, each of the plurality of holding elements exerts a force on the housing, thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. Mattiuzzo fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of holding elements exerts a force on the housing, thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. However, Wurster [Figs1-13] discloses a module comprising terminal elements [182] comprising a holding element [190], wherein each of the plurality of holding elements [190] exerts a force on the housing [186] [Fig.13], thereby holding the housing in a desired position with regard to the substrate. It would have been obvious to provide terminal elements comprising a holding element as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claims 2-6, Mattiuzzo and Wurster disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of holding elements [190] is arranged inside one of the through holes [193] and exerts a force on the housing in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction [Wurster; Col.1 lines 32-44]; wherein at least one of the plurality of holding elements [portion 242] is arranged outside of the housing [410] adjacent to one of the through holes [440], and exerts a force on the housing in the vertical direction [Mattiuzzo; Figs.2-4]; wherein at least one of the plurality of holding elements [190] comprises a spring element [press fit] [Wurster; col.2 lines 38-51; col.5 lines 25-30]; wherein the spring element [190] is arranged inside one of the through holes having a diameter less than a width or diameter of the spring element in an uncompressed state such that the spring element is compressed inside the through hole, and wherein a spring force exerted by the spring element counteracts the force compressing the spring element, thereby holding the housing in the desired position [press fit] [Wurster; col.2 lines 38-51; col.5 lines 25-30]; wherein the spring element comprises a press-fit element [press fit] [Wurster; col.2 lines 38-51; col.5 lines 25-30]. Regarding claims 9-10, Mattiuzzo [Figs.3-14] discloses the power semiconductor module arrangement further comprising: a printed circuit board [460] arranged outside the housing essentially in parallel to and vertically above the housing [410] [Figs.13-14], wherein the printed circuit board comprises a plurality of through holes [450], wherein each of the plurality of terminal elements [430] further extends through one of the through holes of the printed circuit board [Fig.14]; further comprising: a connection layer [208] between each of the plurality of terminal elements [430] and the substrate [408] [Figs.2,4]; Regarding claim 11, Mattiuzzo [Figs.3-14] discloses the power semiconductor module arrangement further comprising: wherein the connection layer [208] comprises at least one of: a solder layer; an electrically conductive adhesive; a layer of a sintered metal powder; and a welding seam. It appears readily obvious as Mattiuzzo [Para.26] discloses the terminal elements can be electrically connected to the connection layer using solder or conductive adhesive. It would have been obvious to include the connection layer comprising at least one of the claimed material, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 12, Mattiuzzo [Figs.3-14] discloses the power semiconductor module arrangement comprising a connection layer, but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of rivets arranged on the substrate, wherein the first end of each of the plurality of terminal elements is inserted into one of the rivets. Mattiuzzo [Para.33] discloses rivets as an option for attaching two structures. It would have been obvious to provide the rivets as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claims 14-15, Mattiuzzo and Wurster disclose wherein arranging the housing on the substrate comprises: inserting each of the plurality of terminal elements [190] into a different one of the plurality of through holes [193] until at least one of the plurality of holding elements is arranged inside one of the through holes and exerts a force on the housing in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction [Wurster; Col.1 lines 32-44]; wherein arranging the housing on the substrate comprises: inserting each of the plurality of terminal elements into a different one of the plurality of through holes until at least one of the plurality of holding elements [portion 242] is arranged outside of the housing [410] adjacent to one of the through holes [440] and exerts a force on the housing in the vertical direction [Mattiuzzo; Figs.2-4]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of wherein the spring element is arranged outside of the housing adjacent to one of the through holes, and wherein the spring element is in an uncompressed state in which a width or diameter of the spring element is larger than a diameter of the through hole adjacent the spring element, thereby preventing the terminal element from moving vertically through the through hole and holding the housing in the desired position; wherein: at least one of the plurality of holding elements has a conical form; a width or diameter of the at least one holding element decreases from a side of the at least one holding element facing the first end of the terminal element towards an opposite side of the at least one holding element facing the second end of the terminal element; a smallest width or diameter of the at least one holding element is smaller than a diameter of the through hole; a largest width or diameter of the at least one holding element equals or is larger than a diameter of the through hole; the at least one holding element is arranged inside the through hole; and the largest width or diameter of the at least one holding element is larger than a width or diameter of the terminal element, such that the at least one holding element forms a collar which acts as a barbed hook, thereby preventing the terminal element from moving vertically through the through hole and holding the housing in the desired position. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM. 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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. /BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593493
Semiconductor structure and manufacturing method thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588462
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588487
TIGHT PITCH DIRECTIONAL SELECTIVE VIA GROWTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12550364
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543553
Forming Liners to Facilitate The Formation of Copper-Containing Vias in Advanced Technology Nodes
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 817 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month