DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-4, 7-8, 25, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McPherson (US 20230142930 A1, hereinafter McPherson’930).
Regarding independent claim 1, McPherson’930 teaches, “A power package (10, fig. 1-31; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0113]) comprising:
an assembly (12, fig. 2-3, 10) comprising a first power package side and a second power package side;
first power terminals (V+/V-, fig. 10) arranged at the first power package side;
second power terminals (U/V/W) arranged at the second power package side;
first signal terminals (G2/K2 and G4/K4) arranged at the first power package side; and
second signal terminals (G1/K1 and G3/K3) arranged at the second power package side,
wherein a location of the first power terminals on the first power package side is symmetrical with respect to a location of the second power terminals on the second power package side (fig 8 shows power terminals V+/V- symmetrically opposed to power terminals W and U on the second side. Fig. 28 also shows the similar).
Regarding claim 2, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein a location of the first power terminals (V+/V-) on the first power package side is symmetrical with respect to one side of the first power package side and another side of the first power package side; and wherein a location of the second power terminals (U/V/W) on the second power package side is symmetrical with respect to one side of the second power package side and another side of the second power package side”.
Regarding claim 3, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein a location of the first signal terminals (G2/K2 and G4/K4) on the first power package side is symmetrical with respect to a location of the second signal terminals (G1/K1 and G3/K3) on the second power package side”.
Regarding claim 4, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein a location of the first signal terminals on the first power package side is symmetrical with respect to one side of the first power package side and another side of the first power package side; and wherein a location of the second signal terminals on the second power package side is symmetrical with respect to one side of the second power package side and another side of the second power package side”.
Regarding claim 7, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein the first signal terminals comprise one or more source kelvin terminals, gate terminals, and/or sensor terminals (signal terminals G2/G4/G6 have source Kelvin terminals K2/K4/K6; fig 21; ¶ [0065], ¶ [0099]); and wherein the second signal terminals comprise one or more source kelvin terminals, gate terminals, and/or sensor terminals (signal terminals G1/G3/G5 have source Kelvin terminals K1/K3/K5; fig 21; ¶ [0065], ¶ [0099])”.
Regarding claim 8, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein the first signal terminals (G2/K2 and G4/K4) are arranged on the first power package side between implementations of the first power terminals (V+/V-); and wherein the second signal terminals (G1/K1 and G3/K3) are arranged on the second power package side between implementations of the second power terminals (V+/V-)”.
Regarding claim 25, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein the first signal terminals comprise a first signal terminal, a second signal terminal, and a third signal terminal (G2, G4, G6, K2, K4, K6); and wherein the second signal terminals comprise a first signal terminal, a second signal terminal, and a third signal terminal (G1, G3, G5, K1, K3, K5)”.
Regarding claim 31, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein the power package is a power module (fig. 2-3; ¶ [0037] ¶ [0038])”.
Regarding independent claim 32, McPherson’930 teaches, “A power package (10, fig. 1-31; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0113]) comprising:
an assembly (12, fig. 2-3, 10) comprising a first power package side and a second power package side;
first power terminals (V+/V-, fig. 10) arranged at the first power package side;
second power terminals (U/V/W) arranged at the second power package side;
first signal terminals (G2/K2 and G4/K4) arranged at the first power package side; and
second signal terminals (G1/K1 and G3/K3) arranged at the second power package side,
wherein a location of the first signal terminals on the first power package side is symmetrical with respect to a location of the second signal terminals on the second power package side (signal terminals G2/K2 and G4/K4 shown on first side of power module 10 are shown having a symmetrical arrangement with signal terminals G1/Kl and G3/K3 on second side of power module 10; fig 10; ¶ [0076])”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson’930 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 20220262735 A1, hereinafter Martin’735).
Regarding claim 10, McPherson’930 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But McPherson’930 is silent upon the provision of wherein the power package according to claim 1, further comprising: a power substrate; at least one power trace arranged on the power substrate; and at least one signal trace arranged on the power substrate.
However, Martin’735 teaches a similar power package (fig. 2) comprising a power substrate (14); at least one power trace (16) arranged on the power substrate (14); and at least one signal trace (16) arranged on the power substrate (14).
McPherson’930 and Martin’735 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify McPherson’930 with the features of Martin’735 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of McPherson’930 and Martin’735 to include power/signal traces according to the teachings of Martin’735 as these enable ‘the power module may provide a significantly more compact power converter system using both an active front-end and switching power converter’. See Martin’735, ¶ [0003].
Regarding claim 11, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the at least one power trace comprises a plurality of implementations of the at least one power trace (fig. 2, Martin’735)”.
Regarding claim 12, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the at least one signal trace comprises one or more kelvin source traces, gate traces, and/or sensor traces (fig. 2, Martin’735)”.
Regarding claim 13, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the at least one signal trace (16, fig. 2, Martin’735) comprises a plurality of implementations of the at least one signal trace”.
Regarding claim 14, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of implementations of the at least one signal trace comprise a plurality of kelvin source traces and/or gate traces (16, fig. 2, Martin’735)”.
Regarding claim 15, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the at least one power trace comprises one or more power device drain traces and/or power device source traces (16, fig. 2, Martin’735)”.
Regarding claim 16, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the at least one power trace (16, fig. 2, Martin’735) comprises a plurality of power traces comprising a plurality of power device drain traces and/or power device source traces”.
Regarding claim 17, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the first power terminals and the second power terminals are configured to connect to the at least one power trace (figs. 2-3, McPherson’930 and fig. 2, Martin’735)”.
Regarding claim 18, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, wherein the first signal terminals and the second signal terminals are configured to connect to the at least one signal trace”.
Regarding claim 19, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 10, further comprising a plurality of power devices, wherein the plurality of power devices are arranged on one or more implementations of the at least one power trace (Martin’735, power transistors Q and power diodes D are each provided via one or more power semiconductor die 18 mounted on the power substrate 14, the power semiconductor die 18 is coupled to the conductive traces 16; figure 2, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 19, wherein a location of the plurality of power devices, the at least one signal trace, the at least one power trace, and/or the power substrate are symmetrical about a lateral axis of symmetry (Martin’735, fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 21, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 19, wherein a location of the plurality of power devices, the at least one signal trace, the at least one power trace, and/or the power substrate are symmetrical about a longitudinal axis of symmetry (Martin’735, fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 23, McPherson’930 modified with Martin’735 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 19, wherein the plurality of power devices comprise at least one first power device and at least one second power device (Martin’735, power transistors Q and power diodes D etc.); wherein the at least one power trace comprises a first power trace (16), a second power trace, a third power trace, and a fourth power trace; wherein the at least one first power device is arranged on and attached to the second power trace; and wherein the at least one second power device is arranged on and attached to the third power trace”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson’930.
Regarding claim 24, McPherson’930 further teaches, “The power package according to claim 1, wherein the first power terminals comprise a first power terminal (V+), a second power terminal (V-), a third power terminal (V-), and a fourth power terminal (V+); and
wherein the second power terminals comprise a first power terminal (V), a second power terminal (V), a third power terminal (V), ((and a fourth power terminal))”.
But McPherson’930 may not be explicit on the fourth power terminal of the second power terminals.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date, to configure the first power terminals with third and fourth power terminals, and the second power terminals with a fourth power terminal, since a mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance switching performance. See McPherson’930, ¶ [0096]. Also, duplicating the power terminal to accommodate more power terminals is usual operation and will not be a novelty or hindsight reconstruction. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 22 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:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: wherein the power package is configured to operate in a same manner when the first power terminals connect to the respective second power connections and the second power terminals connect to the respective first power connections.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: wherein the power package is configured to operate in a same manner when the first signal terminals connect to the respective second signal connections and the second signal terminals connect to the respective first signal connections.
Regarding dependent claim 22, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: wherein the plurality of power devices, the at least one signal trace, the at least one power trace, and/or the power substrate are configured to operate in a same manner when the first power terminals connect to the respective second power connections and the second power terminals connect to the respective first power connections.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species F, reflected in claims 1-25 and 27-32 in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being drawn to the nonelected group.
Applicant's traversal is on the ground(s) that “the various figure-based embodiments do not constitute independent inventions, but instead represent general variations of a common inventive concept (page 4)”. This is not found persuasive because the relative location, structure of the power terminals, signal terminals, power traces, signal traces are independent and distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9 and 27-30 are not reflected in the elected species F and thus will also be considered as withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights