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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Embong et al, US Patent 6,475,834
PNG
media_image1.png
386
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Embong teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
two conductive members 111, 112 adjacent to each other in a first direction perpendicular to a thickness direction;
a semiconductor element 120 bonded to one of the two conductive members; and
a relay terminal 230 bonded to the two conductive members (bonded to 112 via layer 340 and bonded to 11 through 120 and 360),
wherein the relay terminal has a first strip portion 231 and a second strip portion 232 that are bonded to the two conductive members, and a connecting portion 233 that connects the first strip portion and the second strip portion,
the first strip portion and the second strip portion extend in the first direction, and are adjacent to each other in a second direction perpendicular to the thickness direction and the first direction (as shown in figure 3),
the connecting portion is located between the first strip portion and the second strip portion in the second direction (portion of 233 that is circled),
the first strip portion has a first side extending in the first direction (labeled “A”), the connecting portion has a first intermediate side extending in the second direction (labeled “B”), and a first connecting side connecting the first side and the first intermediate side (labeled “C”), and
as viewed in the thickness direction, the first connecting side is located away from a first virtual intersection that is an intersection of a first virtual line extending in the first direction and overlapping with the first side and a second virtual line extending in the second direction and overlapping with the first intermediate side (with the first virtual intersection being point “D” in figure. See figures and 3).
Regarding claim 2, Embong teaches the first connecting side forms a straight line (with the first connection side containing two straight lines, as seen in figure 2).
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) 3-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embong et al, US Patent 6,475,834
Regarding claim 3, Embong fails to teach the first connecting side forms a curve recessed toward an inside of the relay terminal as viewed in the thickness direction.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Embong teaches as viewed in the thickness direction, a part of the connecting portion is surrounded by the first connecting side, the first virtual line, and the second virtual line (as shown in figure above)
Regarding claim 5, Embong teaches as viewed in the thickness direction, the first connecting side extends across the first virtual line and the second virtual line (at the corners of where “C” meets with both “A” and “B”).
Regarding claim 13, Embong fails to teach the relay terminal is thicker than each of the two conductive members
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al, US Patent 6,291,880
.
Regarding claim 14, Embong fails to teach two base members adjacent to each other in the first direction, wherein the two conductive members are arranged on the two base members, respectively, and as viewed in the thickness direction, the connecting portion overlaps with a gap provided between the two base members.
However, Ogawa teaches a completed semiconductor component that includes two base members 15 in part G, and 15 part H below adjacent to each other in the first direction, wherein the two conductive members are arranged on the two base members, respectively, and as viewed in the thickness direction. Combining this base member of Ogawa with that of Embong teaches the limitation of “the connecting portion overlaps with a gap provided between the two base members”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ogawa with that of Embong because it is generally-known in the art that the disclosed structure of Embong may be placed on a base member structure to keep the device more secure. Further, the base is also used to securely attach the semiconductor structure to a heat sink, which would improve the quality of the device formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 Ogawa teaches a heat dissipator 19 located opposite from the two conductive members with the two base members therebetween in the thickness direction, wherein the two base members are supported by the heat dissipator (Figure 6)
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 16, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...*the second strip portion has a second side extending in the first direction and facing the first side, the connecting portion has a second connecting side connecting the second side and the first intermediate side, and as viewed in the thickness direction, the second connecting side is located away from a second virtual intersection that is an intersection of the second virtual line and a third virtual line extending in the first direction and overlapping with the second side...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 7-8 are dependent upon claim 6 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 6, the cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 6-8 have been found to be allowable.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the first strip portion and the second strip portion are formed with a plurality of bonding marks that each overlap with one of the two conductive members, one of the plurality of bonding marks includes a first region and a second region overlapping with the first region, and the second region has a protrusion located outward beyond the first region...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 10-12 are dependent upon claim 9 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 9, the cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 6-7 have been found to be allowable.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...a first input terminal electrically connected to the two conductive members, and a second input terminal, wherein the first input terminal and the second input terminal are located in a first sense of the first direction and adjacent to each other in the second direction...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 16 and is therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 16, the cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 16-17 have been found to be allowable.
Claims 18-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the step of bonding the relay terminal includes a step of forming a plurality of first bonding marks on the first strip portion and the second strip portion by sequentially pressing a capillary against areas of the first strip portion and the second strip portion that overlap with the two conductive members as viewed in the thickness direction, and a step of forming a second bonding mark on either the first strip portion or the second strip portion by placing the capillary to overlap with a first bonding mark that is formed first among the plurality of first bonding marks and pressing the capillary against the first bonding mark, and in the step of forming the second bonding mark, the capillary is pressed across a periphery of the first bonding mark...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 19-20 dependent upon claim 18 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 18, Embong teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the steps of: bonding a relay terminal 230 to two conductive members 111, 112 adjacent to each other in a first direction perpendicular to the thickness direction; and bonding a semiconductor element 230 to one of the two conductive members, wherein the relay terminal has a first strip portion 231 and a second strip portion 232 that extend in the first direction, and that are adjacent to each other in a second direction perpendicular to the thickness direction and the first direction, and a connecting portion 233 that is located between the first strip portion and the second strip portion in the second direction, and that connects the first strip portion and the second strip portion (figures 2-3).
Embong fails to teach bonding, with ultrasonic vibrations and the step of bonding the relay terminal includes a step of forming a plurality of first bonding marks on the first strip portion and the second strip portion by sequentially pressing a capillary against areas of the first strip portion and the second strip portion that overlap with the two conductive members as viewed in the thickness direction, and a step of forming a second bonding mark on either the first strip portion or the second strip portion by placing the capillary to overlap with a first bonding mark that is formed first among the plurality of first bonding marks and pressing the capillary against the first bonding mark, and in the step of forming the second bonding mark, the capillary is pressed across a periphery of the first bonding mark.
While the reference of Hayashiguchi (et al, US Patent Application Publication 2016/0294379) teaches bonding, with ultrasonic vibrations [0109], the reference of Hayashiguchi fails to teach this limitation as well. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 16-17 have been found to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899