Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/570,145

POWER SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
AZAM, MUHAMMED
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hitachi Astemo, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
342 granted / 395 resolved
+18.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
409
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 395 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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 07/01/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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. The following title is suggested: “POWER SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH COOLER HEREIN”. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “Provided is” is analogous to an implied phrase and should be removed. (suggestion: change the sentence into multiple sentences- not a objection). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface being exposed” which should be “the surface of the conductor plate being exposed.” Appropriate correction/explanation is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5 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. 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. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USUI (JP-2013149730) in view of Case Law. Regarding Claim 1, USUI teaches, in Fig. 2, a power semiconductor device (100) comprising: a circuit body in which a conductor plate (collector electrode, emitter electrode) and a semiconductor element (120) mounted on the conductor plate are sealed with a sealing resin (410); a cooler (not shown, page 7 paragraph 7) disposed opposite to at least one surface of the circuit body (when combined or rearrangement of parts); and an insulating member (350) disposed between the circuit body and the cooler (page 7 paragraph 4 -7), the insulating member including: an insulating sheet (360) bonded to the cooler (page 7 paragraph 7); a conductor layer (370,380) bonded to a surface of the insulating sheet (page 6 last 4 paragraphs) the surface facing the circuit body (see Figures); and heat dissipation grease filled between the circuit body and the cooler (page 7 paragraph 7), and formed covering the insulating sheet and the conductor layer (implicit- the grease is being placed on the insulating member), but does not teach grease is an electrically insulating heat dissipation grease. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the grease to be an electrically insulating heat dissipation grease (as shown in Claim 1 of US5629562 or Claim 3 of CN110943154) in order to avoid heat dissipation element leakage and improve the safety (CN 110943154, page 3 – advantage 3) or The electrical conductivity and the thermal conductivity are improved (US5629562- Column 4 lines 1-10, column 2 lines 35-45) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion The prior arts made of record and not relied upon, such as US20130270684, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm. 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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. /MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2848 /Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603575
Power Conversion Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591757
CARRIER CARD WITH REDUCED WIDTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580096
WIRING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12548989
SYSTEMS AND APPARATUSES FOR A MODULAR ELECTRONICS ROOFING ATTACHMENT AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548992
BUSDUCT AND BUSDUCT SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 395 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month