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 § 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 1-17 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.
The term “improved” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification nor the claim does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor does it properly describe what is improved upon (e.g. – having a baseline and then showing an improvement from a baseline), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons due to their dependance on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikizawa et al. (US 2016/0093557 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishikizawa et al. teaches a semiconductor device [CP1 AND CP2 in Fig 2, Paragraph 0054] for audio [one of the many things the semiconductor device could be used for would include audio], comprising:
semiconductor element [PKG in Fig 2], including a plurality of electrodes [P1and P2 in Fig 2, Paragraph 0054], wherein the plurality of electrodes include an electrode for digital signal input [P1 & TE3 Paragraph 0147. This is an electrode connected to a terminal that is able to input a digital signal.], an electrode for digital power supply [P1S in Fig 9, Paragraph 0143. P1S is an electrode connected to a power source and is able to provide a digital power supply], and an electrode for analog signal output [P2 & TE4 in Fig 19, Paragraphs 0150-0151, This is an electrode connected to a terminal that is able to output an analog signal output];
a plurality of leads [LD in figure 2, Paragraph 0054]; and
a plurality of wires [BW in figure 2, Paragraph 0054], electrically connecting the plurality of electrodes to the plurality of leads [Paragraph 0054], wherein the plurality of wires include:
first wires [paragraph 0009], each having a main component of a first metal [Paragraph 0100], wherein the electrode for digital power supply are connected to the respective first wires [Paragraph 0100 describes that the wires, BW, connected to the electrodes, P1S, are made from the first metal. Paragraph 0143 describes the first wires connected to the electrode]; and
a second wire [paragraph 0009], having a main component of a second metal different from the first metal [Paragraph 100], wherein the electrode for analog signal output is connected to the second wire [Paragraph 0100 describes the wires, BW, connected to the electrodes P1 and P2, are made from the second metal, and
wherein the electrical connections between the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of wires are configured such that at least one sound-quality evaluation indicator of the semiconductor device for audio is improved [As Nishikizawa et al. has the same claimed structure, i.e. the electrical connections, therefore, it would be configured to improve at least one sound-quality evaluation indicator].
Nishikizawa et al. does not explicitly teach the electrode for digital signal input being connected to the respective first wires.
Nishikizawa et al. teaches in a different embodiment that the electrode for digital signal input being connected to the respective first wires (Paragraph 101 states that the electrode P1 can be made with the same first metal as the wire connected to digital power supply).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikizawa et al. to make the wire connected to the digital signal input the first wire, as taught by the alternate version of Nishikizawa et al., as it would further reduce the manufacturing costs of the semiconductor device [Paragraph 101].
Regarding claim 2, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the second metal is softer than the first metal [Paragraph 0100. It is common knowledge in the art that Gold is softer than Copper].
Regarding Claim 3, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the first metal has an electrical resistivity less than an electrical resistivity of the second metal [Paragraph 0100. It is common knowledge in the art that Gold is more resistive than Copper].
Regarding Claim 4, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the first metal is copper (Cu) [Paragraph 0100].
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of Claim 1, wherein the second metal is aluminum (Al) [Paragraph 0099 states that the wire metals can be Copper, Gold, or Aluminum].
Regarding Claim 6, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the first wire and the second wire have the same wire diameter [Paragraph 0096 states that the wires BW may be made identical in diameter].
Regarding Claim 7, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] of claim 1, wherein each of the first wires has a wire diameter greater than a wire diameter of the second wire [Paragraph 0100].
Regarding Claim 8, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] of claim 1, wherein each of the first wires is shorter than the second wire [Paragraph 0224].
Regarding Claim 9, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor element has a quadrilateral shape in a plan view [Figs 1-5]
Regarding Claim 10, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] of claim 1 wherein the plurality of leads are arranged to surround the semiconductor element along four sides of the semiconductor element in the plan view [Figs 2-4, LDs surround P1 and P2 on all sides].
Regarding Claim 11, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1 wherein the semiconductor element is configured as an audio D/A converter [There is no additional structure listed in this claim. As the structure of the claim is the same as the structure of Nishikizawa et al., the semiconductor elements, CP1 and CP2, are able to be used as a D/A converter].
Regarding Claim 15, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1 wherein
the plurality of electrodes [P1and P2 in Fig 2, Paragraph 0054] further include an electrode for analog power supply [P1S in Fig 9, Paragraph 0143. P1S is an electrode connected to a power source that is able to provide an analog power supply], and
one of the first wires is connected to the electrode for analog power supply [BW and P1S in figure 9, Paragraph 0143 demonstrates a wire connected to the electrode for power supply. Paragraph 0100 describes that the wires, BW, connected to the electrodes, P1S, are made from the first metal].
Regarding Claim 16, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the at least one sound- quality evaluation indicator is selected from the group consisting of transparency, presence, width, resolution, positioning, bass volume, tone, and density [This claim does not add any further structure to the device, which are required for device claims. Since the structure in Nishikizawa et al. is the same as the structure claimed, Nishikizawa is configured to teach at least one sound quality indicator from this group].
Regarding Claim 17, Nishikizawa et al. teaches the semiconductor device [PKG in Fig 2] for audio of claim 1, wherein the at least one sound- quality evaluation indicator is improved as compared with at least one of: (i) a configuration in which all of the plurality of wires have the first metal as a main component; and (ii) a configuration in which all of the plurality of wires have the second metal as a main component. [As taught in claim 1, Nishikizawa has the same structural configuration in which different metal wires are used, the first metal and the second metal. Therefore, since the structure is the same, this configuration within Nishikizawa would improve at least one sound-quality indicator].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Despite the Office Action identifying individual element-by-element correspondence between the claimed electrodes and the electrodes within Nishikizawa, the prior art failed to teach the claimed combination as a whole. Specifically using the difference in the metal of the wires as the reason which the application is patentably distinct from the prior art used.
This argument is not persuasive due to the fact that there are no additional structural features, besides the difference within the metal of the wires which has been rejected in Claim 1 above. The applicant would need to go into the clear structural differences between the electrodes: the analog signal output, the digital signal input, and the digital power supply. For this argument to be persuasive further structure needs to be addressed to explain how these electrodes are structurally different from each other and the ones used within Nishikizawa in order to show that there is a patentable difference.
Applicant further argued that since Nishikizawa uses a power transistor and a control circuit within the device, therefore, it is unrelated to and does not teach improvement in any audio sound-quality evaluation indicators.
However, within a structural claim, intended use of the structural features only hold patentable weight as to if the prior art is unable to perform that intended use. Since Nishikizawa has the same structure as the claimed semiconductor device, it would stand to reason that it would also have improvements within sound-quality indicators, when used in an audio device. Improvement on audio sound-quality indicators alone does not add any further structure to the claims. Therefore, the applicant would need to further explain the structure behind the semiconductor device which is different from Nishikizawa that allows for improvement on audio sound-quality indicators.
Application also addresses the additional references that were cited. As these are not used within the prior art rejection, they are not pertinent to the final rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH HARBOTTLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/C.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights