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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
In the specification and drawings, the current sense area is 116. There is no figure which shows the second die coupled to the current sense area. In ¶ 0036, Applicant states the controller 104a can be coupled to the sense area 116, however the figures show the controller 104a is coupled to the pad 302. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not shown.
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.
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, 4-7, 10-13, 15-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi et al. (US 2022/0137102 A1) (“Inoguchi”), in view of Uchinuma et al. (US 2024/0363500 A1) (“Uchinuma”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
a substrate (¶ 0011, where a substrate is used);
a first die (16) coupled to the substrate (¶ 0011) and a current sense area (24);
a second die (20) coupled to the substrate (¶ 0011),
the second die (20) coupled to the current sense area (24) by a second wire bond (28).
Inoguchi does not clearly show:
a first die coupled to the substrate and having a current sense area;
a first wire bond coupled to the first die at plurality of bonding points.
Uchinuma teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 4:
a first die (200) coupled to the substrate (400) and having a current sense area (205);
a first wire bond (MA/MB) coupled to the first die (200) at plurality of bonding points (MA/MB are bonded to 200 at a plurality of bonding points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the IGBT/MOSFET (hereinafter “transistor”) of Inoguchi with the transistor of Uchinuma because Uchinuma includes the current sense into the first die by means of a Kelvin pad. As this not only further miniaturizes the device it also allows for a wider active region as the RDS(on) of the device can be reduced. See figure 9.
The combination of references teaches:
A first wire bond (Uchinuma MA/MB; Inoguchi 22) coupled to the lead frame (Inoguchi 6/26, package ground is the lead frame); and
The plurality of bonding points (Uchinuma MA/MB; Inogochi 6/26, where it would be obvious that package ground would be connected to a ground terminal of the lead frame) including a terminal of a transistor (Uchinuma 18) including the first die (Uchinuma 16) and the current sense area (Uchinuma 24).
Regarding claim 4, Uchinuma teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 4:
wherein the transistor is an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) (¶ 0003, where a MOSFET or IGBT can be used), and
Regarding claim 5, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
Wherein the terminal of the transmitter is an emitter of the IGBT (this is shown in figure 3 of where 36 and 38 are on the emitter; see also figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art teaches:
wherein the first wire bond is configured to carry a current between the emitter and ground and no current between the emitter and the current sense area (The device is so configured because the current flows from the emitter. The current sense area is there only to “sense” the current and not to actually deliver current out of the device. This is the function of the emitter.).
Regarding claim 7, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
wherein a first bonding pad at the current sense area for the first wire bond is separated from a second bonding pad at the current sense area for the second wire bond (as shown in Inoguchi figure 3 there are two wires 36 and 38. It is obvious that the two wires would have their own bonding pads).
Regarding claim 10, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
this is considered a use of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art using routine skill in the art would make the determination of how and where they want each of the bonding wires to be connected. Further, since the prior art teaches the device will be a final device it would also be up to the end user of ordinary skill in the art on how they want to connect each of the lead frames. Thus, the use of the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
wherein the second die (20) is configured to sense current in the first wire bond (wire 2 or 24).
Regarding claim 12, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
wherein the current sense area is configured to operate without current flow (this is the function of the current sense area. See claim 6).
Regarding claim 13, Inoguchi teaches at least in figures 1-4:
wherein the current sense area is electrically floating (42 is electrically floating in the sense that it is not connected to any other element. .
Regarding claim 13, Uchinuma teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 4:
wherein the current sense area is electrically floating (205 is electrically floating in the sense that it is only connected to read the current and is not electrically connected without the wire bonds).
wherein the current sense area is electrically floating (42 is electrically floating in the sense that it is not connected to any other element. .
Regarding claim 15, Uchinuma teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 4:
Claim 15 is taught by at least one of figure 1 of Uchinuma, and at least one of figures 1-2, and 5 of Inoguchi.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected for the same and/or similar reason as claim 13.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected for the same and/or similar reason as claim 6.
Regarding claim 21,
wherein the first wire bond has a larger diameter than that of the second wire bond (under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here there is no evidence that the claimed device would perform differently if the wire dimensions were different. Therefore, the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art.
Claim(s) 2, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi, in view of Uchinuma, in view of St. German et al. (US 2018/0053712 A1) (“St. German”).
Regarding claim 2, Inoguchi does not teach:
wherein the second die is attached to the substrate by a polyimide tape.
St. German teaches:
That known means for attaching dies to a lead frames can include:
epoxy, polyimide, silicone or hybrid organic adhesives, and/or soft or eutectic solders, and it may be deposited in gel, paste, film, tape, or solder form.”
¶ 0030. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art could use any known means for attaching a die to a lead frame as they all are well-known obvious variants of each other, and one reading Inogunchi would know this as evidenced by St. German.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-2 in that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use their routine skill in the art to determine what is the best method for their specific requirements to attach the first die and the second die to the substrate. St. German teaches that there are a plurality of functionally equivalent methods to make such attachments and one of ordinary skill in the art using routine skill in the art would know which is best suited for each of said devices.
Regarding claim 19,
This is the function the prior art’s current detection circuit shown in Inoguchi figure 2, and Uchinuma figure 1.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected for the same and/or similar reason as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi, in view of Uchinuma, in view of Ostrem (US 4,796,157) (“Ostrem”).
Regarding claims 8-9, Inoguchi does not teach:
The bonding wires are gold and/or aluminum
Ostem teaches:
Bonding wires are typically made out of gold or aluminum. Col. 3 at lines 64-68.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to choose well-known materials as the bonding wires for the device. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix and match different types of well-known materials for these bonding based wires based upon the current carrying capability and other characteristics of said wires. One of ordinary skill in the art would use their routine skill in the art to make the determination of which material is best for the their specific need and the needs of the design requirements.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi, in view of Uchinuma, in view of Ostrem, in view of Liou et al. (US 8,022,522 B1) (“Liou”)
Regarding claim 14,
As stated in claims 8-9 Ostem teaches that one can use aluminum or gold wires.
Liou teaches:
That when one uses gold wires it is commonly known as gold ball bonding. “In gold ball bonding, a gold ball is formed (e.g., the free-air ball) which is then attached to a respective location (e.g., a bond pad of the die) using appropriate amounts of pressure, heat, ultrasonic forces and the like.” Col. 4 at lines 33-37.
Based upon the teachings of Liou one would know that the gold wire bonding would include the use of forming gold balls to attach the gold wire to the bond pads.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that MA/MB are not wires rather they are traces. This is a distinction without a difference as they are both functionally equivalent in allowing an electrical signal between two points. One of ordinary skill in the art would know they could replace traces with wires and vice-versa as they perform the same function.
Applicant asserts that MA/MB are not connected to a surface of the chip. Rather they are below an oxide layer. Examiner disagrees. MA/MB are connected to the surface of the chip as they connect to element 202 at points A and B. The inclusion of being under a protective silicon oxide layer does not take away from the fact that MA/MB contact a surface of the chip. Applicant may want to further define what “a surface” is.
Applicant asserts that MA/MB does not couple the chip to the lead frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated in the analysis of the claim above.
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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights