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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) submitted on December 4, 2023; December 2, 2024; July 25, 2025; and January 8, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
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, “a protrusion portion in which a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion protrudes toward the heat sink in a substantially spherical shape in a state before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink” recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For clarity of the record, it is unclear what structure constitutes “a substantially spherical shape”. However, following is the Examiner’s current understanding of an illustrated structure that constitutes a spherical shape:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 6, “a periphery of the screw hole” should be, “peripheries of the screw holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 10-14 recite: “when a cross section of the base plate is viewed, an inclination of the second main surface of the base plate is discontinuous at a boundary between the chamfered portion and a region of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear where the recited cross section of the base plate is being taken and also from what reference frame this cross section is being viewed. As another example, it is unclear what an inclination of the second main surface of the base plate is discontinuous at a boundary between the chamfered portion and a region of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion means. Does this mean that the second main surface of the base plate is angled? If so, then with respect to what structure is this angle measured? Does the second main surface of the base plate have multiple angles because it is discontinuous at a boundary? As an additional example, it is unclear where the recited boundary between the chamfered portion and a region of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is located. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 10-14 of claim 1 as reciting: “the second main surface of the base plate is discontinuous between the chamfered portion and a region of the second main surface of the base plate” because of this ambiguity. Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependent on independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, lines 2-4 recite: “wherein a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is a flat surface in a state before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how the second main surface of the base plate can also have a flat surface because of the redundant use of the word “surface”. As another example, it is unclear what before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink means because claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites that the “heat sink [is already] connected to [the] second main surface of the base plate”. How does fixing the base plate to the heat sink differ from connecting the second main surface of the base plate to the heat sink? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-4 of claim 2 as reciting: “wherein a portion of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is flat” because of this ambiguity
Claim 3, lines 2-6 recite: “further comprising a protrusion portion in which a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion protrudes toward the heat sink in a substantially spherical shape in a state before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how the second main surface of the base plate can also have a surface because of the redundant use of the word “surface”. As another example, it is unclear what a protrusion portion is or how this protrusion portion is acted upon to protrude toward the heat sink in a substantially spherical shape in a state before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink. As an additional example, it is unclear what a substantially spherical shape means because there is no basis in the claim language for when a protrusion portion protrudes toward the heat sink in a substantially spherical shape and when it does not. For clarity of the record, it is unclear from claim 3 what structure constitutes “a substantially spherical shape”. However, following is the Examiner’s current understanding of an illustrated structure that constitutes a spherical shape:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner understands that the volume of such a spherical shape having a radius (r) is defined by the equation: Volume = 4/3 x π x r3. The Examiner also understands that the surface area of such a spherical shape having a radius (r) is defined by the equation: Surface Area = 4 x π x r2. How does a substantially spherical shape differ from this illustrated structure of a spherical shape, above? How is a volume of a substantially spherical shape mathematically defined? How is a surface area of a substantially spherical shape mathematically defined?
As a further example, it is unclear what before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink means because claim 1 from which claim 3 depends recites that the “heat sink [is already] connected to [the] second main surface of the base plate”. How does fixing the base plate to the heat sink differ from connecting the second main surface of the base plate to the heat sink? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-6 of claim 3 as reciting: “wherein the second main surface of the base plate further comprises a protruding portion other than the chamfered portion” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 5, lines 5-9 recite: “a boundary between the chamfered portion and a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is provided outside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how the second main surface of the base plate can also have a surface because of the redundant use of the word “surface”. As another example, it is unclear how a region is defined by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line because line 3 of claim 5 appears to recite at least four screw holes (i.e., “four corners of the base plate have screw holes”) which would require at least four different straight lines, not just a straight line to define such a region. As an additional example, the location of a boundary . . . outside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line is unclear because location and extent of the region is undefined in the first place. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 5-9 of claim 5 as reciting: “further comprising a boundary between the screw holes and the end portion of the second main surface” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 7, lines 7-11 recite: “a boundary between the chamfered portion and a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is provided inside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how the second main surface of the base plate can also have a surface because of the redundant use of the word “surface”. As another example, it is unclear how a region is defined by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line because line 3 of claim 5 appears to recite at least four screw holes (i.e., “four corners of the base plate have screw holes”) which would require at least four different straight lines, not just a straight line to define such a region. As an additional example, the location of a boundary . . . inside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line is unclear because location and extent of the region is undefined in the first place. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 7-11 of claim 7 as reciting: “further comprising a boundary between the screw holes and the end portion of the second main surface” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-5 recite: “wherein the chamfered portion of the base plate is provided on a side where a distance between the semiconductor chip and a side surface of the base plate is small among sides of the base plate.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how a side surface of the base plate differs from sides of the base plate or “a side” where the chamfered portion . . . is provided. As another example, it is unclear how a side surface of the base plate differs from “a first main surface” and “a second main surface” recited in independent claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. As an additional example, it is unclear how “a side” differs from “at least one side of the second main surface” recited in independent claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. As a further example, the term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-5 of claim 8 as reciting: “wherein the chamfered portion of the base plate is provided between the semiconductor chip and an end of the base plate” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 9, lines 2-4 recite: “wherein the chamfered portion is provided on at least a side that is in a downward direction when the power semiconductor module is mounted among sides of the base plate.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear how “a side” differs from “at least one side of the second main surface” recited in independent claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. As another example, it is unclear how at least a side differs from among sides of the base plate. As an additional example, the phrase “downward direction” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term “downward direction” is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a further example, it is unclear how the “the power semiconductor module is mounted among sides of the base plate” because the power semiconductor module is the preamble of both claims 1 and 9 which means the power semiconductor module comprises the elements recited in the bodies of these claims. The power semiconductor module cannot be mounted to itself, as recited by claim 9. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-4 of claim 9 as reciting: “wherein the chamfered portion is provided on an end of the base plate” because of this ambiguity.
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, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by US 2015/0289356 A1 (Izuo).
Regarding claim 1, Izuo discloses, A power semiconductor module (power semiconductor module (100); FIG. 1A; [0014]) comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
532
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a base plate (base plate (1); FIG. 1A; [0015]);
a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip (4); FIG. 1A; [0015]) mounted on a first main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1); and
a heat sink (heat sink (10); FIG. 1A; [[0014]) connected to a second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1),
wherein a chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) is provided at an end portion of at least one side of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above), and
PNG
media_image3.png
421
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in a state where the base plate (1) is fixed to the heat sink (10) (FIG. 1A), when a cross section of the base plate (1) is viewed, an inclination of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1) is discontinuous at a boundary between the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) and a region of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1) other than the chamfered portion1 (first annotated FIG. 1B, above), and an angle formed between a bottom surface of the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A) of the base plate (1) and a surface of the heat sink (10) on a side where the base plate (1) is fixed is 5° or more and 30° or less ([0021]—angle of tilted part of chamfered portion may range from 20 to 60 degrees which overlaps with the claimed range of 5° or more and 30° or less). Please see, MPEP 2131.03(II)—Prior Art Which Teaches A Range Overlapping Or Touching The Claimed Range Anticipates If The Prior Art Range Discloses The Claimed Range With “Sufficient Specificity”.
Regarding claim 2, Izuo discloses, The power semiconductor module (100) according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second main surface of the base plate (1) other than the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) is a flat surface in a state (first annotated FIG. 1B, above) before the base plate (1) is fixed to the heat sink (10).2
Regarding claim 4, Izuo discloses, The power semiconductor module (100) according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor chip (4) is disposed not to overlap with the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1).
Regarding claim 8, Izuo discloses, The power semiconductor module (100) according to claim 1, wherein the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1) is provided on a side (“end”; annotated FIG. 1A, above) where a distance between the semiconductor chip (4) and a side surface of the base plate (1) is small among sides of the base plate (1).3
Regarding claim 9, Izuo discloses, The power semiconductor module (100) according to claim 1, wherein the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) is provided on at least a side (“end”; annotated FIG. 1A, above) that is in a downward direction when the power semiconductor module is mounted among sides of the base plate (1).4
Regarding claim 10, Izuo discloses, The power semiconductor module (100) according to claim 1, wherein a maximum value of a distance (distance (d); second annotated FIG. 1B, below) between a bottom surface of the chamfered portion (second annotated FIG. 1B, below) and an upper surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the heat sink (10) is 0.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less ([0021]—distance (a) is 1.5mm which means distance (d) in second annotated FIG. 1b, below is less than 1.5mm which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5mm or more and 2.5mm or less). Please see, MPEP 2131.03(II), above.
PNG
media_image4.png
315
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuo in view of US 2014/0374896 A1 (Nishida).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant may argue that Izuo does not appear to disclose, further comprising a protrusion portion in which a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion protrudes toward the heat sink in a substantially spherical shape in a state before the base plate is fixed to the heat sink.5
However, in analogous art, Nishida discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a base plate (base plate (400); FIG. 3A; [0032]) having a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip (200); FIG. 3A; [0032]) mounted on a first main surface thereof (annotated FIG. 3A, below) may be predicable fabricated to include a protruding portion on a second main surface thereof (annotated FIG. 3A, below) that faces a heat sink (heat sink (800); FIG. 3A; [0035]) which is connected to the second main surface (annotated FIG. 3A, below) of base plate (400).
PNG
media_image5.png
622
637
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Izuo and Nishida before him/her that the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of base plate (1) of Izuo further comprise a protrusion portion in which a surface of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A, above) of the base plate (1) other than the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A, above) protrudes toward the heat sink (10) in a substantially spherical shape in a state before the base plate (1) is fixed to the heat sink (10), as taught by Nishida, because this constitutes a simple substitution of the protruding portion of the second main surface of base plate (400) of Nishida for a portion of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1a, above) of base plate (1) of Izuo with the predicable result of still forming a base plate having a second main surface that can be connected to heat sink (10) of Izuo, as also taught by Nishida. See, MPEP 2143(B)—Simple Substitution of One Known Element For Another To Obtain Predicable Results.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuo in view of US 2008/0101032 A1 (Tschirbs).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant may argue that Izuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein
four corners of the base plate have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink, and
a boundary between the chamfered portion and a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is provided outside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line6.
However, in analogous art, Tschirbs discloses that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a base plate (base plate (2); FIG. 1a; [0026]) may be predicably fabricated to include screw holes (screw holes (6); FIG. 1a; [0032]) located at four corners of base plate (2) for screw fastening to a heat sink (heat sink (9); FIG. 2; [0027]). Tschirbs also discloses that a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip (4); FIG. 1a, [0026]) may be mounted on a first main surface (first annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below) of base plate (2). Tschirbs additionally discloses that base plate (2) may be predicably fabricated to include a boundary (first annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below) between screw holes (6) and an end portion of a second main surface of base plate (2) (first annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
548
762
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Izuo and Tschirbs before him/her that four corners of the base plate (1) of Izuo have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink (10) of Izuo, as taught by Tschirbs, and a boundary between the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) and a surface of the second main surface (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) of the base plate (1) other than the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) is provided outside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line, as also taught by Tschirbs, thereby eliminating the need for the use of additional structure such as resin case (resin case (6); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) and, in some embodiments, pressure member (pressure member (13); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) to connect base plate (1) of Izuo to heat sink (10) while preserving the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) of Izuo which saves cost and manufacturing time, as well as reducing manufacturing complexity. Please see, MPEP 2143(G)—Some Teaching, Suggestion, Or Motivation In The Prior Art That Would Have Led One Of Ordinary Skill To Modify the Prior Art Reference Or To Combine Prior Art Reference Teachings To Arrive At The Claimed Invention. See also, MPEP 2144(IV)—Rational Different From Applicant’s Is Permissible.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant may argue that Izuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein
four corners of the base plate have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink, and
the chamfered portion is not formed around the screw holes.
However, in analogous art, Tschirbs discloses that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a base plate (base plate (2); FIG. 1a; [0026]) may be predicably fabricated to include screw holes (screw holes (6); FIG. 1a; [0032]) located at four corners of base plate (2) for screw fastening to a heat sink (heat sink (9); FIG. 2; [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Izuo and Tschirbs before him/her that four corners of the base plate (1) of Izuo have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink (10) of Izuo, as taught by Tschirbs, and the chamfered portion is not formed around the screw holes, thereby eliminating the need for the use of additional structure such as resin case (resin case (6); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) and, in some embodiments, pressure member (pressure member (13); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) to connect base plate (1) of Izuo to heat sink (10) while preserving the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) of Izuo which saves cost and manufacturing time, as well as reducing manufacturing complexity. Please see, MPEP 2143(G) and MPEP 2144(IV), both above.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant may argue that Izuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein
four corners of the base plate have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink,
the chamfered portion is formed in a region other than a periphery of the screw hole, and
a boundary between the chamfered portion and a surface of the second main surface of the base plate other than the chamfered portion is provided inside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line7.
However, in analogous art, Tschirbs discloses that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a base plate (base plate (2); FIG. 1a; [0026]) may be predicably fabricated to include screw holes (screw holes (6); FIG. 1a; [0032]) each having periphery and located at four corners of base plate (2) for screw fastening to a heat sink (heat sink (9); FIG. 2; [0027]). Tschirbs also discloses that a semiconductor chip (semiconductor chip (4); FIG. 1a, [0026]) may be mounted on a first main surface (second annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below) of base plate (2). Tschirbs additionally discloses that base plate (2) may be predicably fabricated to include a boundary (second annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below) between screw holes (6) and an end portion of a second main surface of base plate (2) (second annotated FIG. 1a of Tschirbs, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
553
753
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Izuo and Tschirbs before him/her that four corners of the base plate (1) of Izuo have screw holes for screw fastening to the heat sink (10) of Izuo, as taught by Tschirbs, the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) is formed in a region other than a periphery of the screw hole, and a boundary between the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) and a surface of the second main surface of the base plate (1) other than the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) is provided inside a region surrounded by joining centers of the screw holes to each other by a straight line, as also taught by Tschirbs, thereby eliminating the need for the use of additional structure such as resin case (resin case (6); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) and, in some embodiments, pressure member (pressure member (13); FIG. 1A; [0014], all of Izuo) to connect base plate (1) of Izuo to heat sink (10) while preserving the chamfered portion (annotated FIG. 1A of Izuo, above) of Izuo which saves cost and manufacturing time, as well as reducing manufacturing complexity. Please see, MPEP 2143(G) and MPEP 2144(IV), both above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuo in view of DE 19609929 B4 (Spann).
Regarding claim 11, Izuo does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a material of the base plate is AlSiC or MgSiC.
However, in analogous art, Spann discloses that a base plate (base plate (1); FIG. 2; [0017] of translated Description) of a power semiconductor module (FIG. 2; [0001] of translated Description) may be predicably fabricated of a material comprising silicon carbide and aluminum ([0017] of translated Description). Spann also discloses that a material comprising silicon carbide and aluminum is solderable ([0017] of translated Description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Izuo and Spann before him/her that a material of base plate (1) of Izuo is AlSiC, as taught by Spann, so that one or more components of power semiconductor module (100) of Izuo can be soldered thereto, as also taught by Spann.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0161145 A1 (Mafune)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a power semiconductor module may include a base plate (1R) having a chamfered portion (FIG. 30) provided at an end of at least one side of a second main surface of the base plate (1R). Also discloses that and angle may be formed at a bottom surface of the chamfered portion ([0114]).
US 2011/0174428 A1 (Yamamoto)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a power semiconductor module (1) (FIG. 1) may include a base plate (20) having a chamfered portion (FIG. 1) provided at an end of at least one side of a second main surface of the base plate (20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 1 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
2 Please see the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 2 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
3 Please see the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 8 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
4 Please see the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 9 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
5 Please see the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 3 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
6 Please see the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 5 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
7 Please see the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 7 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.