CTNF 18/609,586 CTNF 90692 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 19, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. In regards to claims 1 and 17 : The phrase "a non-zero angle" is broad and functionally unlimited. Because it fails to provide a clear boundary for what constitutes an infringing structure versus a non-infringing structural variation, it is indefinite. The limitation "is twisted and/or bent" introduces metes and bounds that are completely alternative in scope. It is unclear if the structure requires both a twist and a bend, or if either one independently satisfies the claim, making the exact physical configuration of the claimed power contacts vague. In regards to claim 6 : Introduces "the one or more bend portions". There is no prior explicit recitation of "bend portions" in Claim 1 (Claim 1 merely states a second portion is bent as a state of being, not that it contains distinct structural "bend portions"). In regards to claim 7 : Introduces "the twist portion". Claim 1 only recites that the second portion is "twisted and/or bent". It does not establish a distinct, independent structural region called "a twist portion." In regards to claim 8 : the claim recites that "a distal end of the second power contact is at a greater distance from the respective lateral side than a distal end of the first power contact." The term "greater distance" is a term of degree without a standard of measure provided in the claim, leaving the scope of the distinction between the two lengths open to subjective interpretation. The limitation "when viewed from above the broadest surfaces, the first and the second power contacts have a T-shape or an L-shape" uses alternative language ("or"). It is unclear whether both contacts must have the same shape, or if one can be T-shaped while the other is L-shaped, clouding how the contacts stack and overlap. In regards to claim 9 : states that the outlines "completely overlap between the respective lateral side and the distal end of the first power contact." However, Claim 8 explicitly states that the contacts have a "T-shape or an L-shape" and "different lengths." If they have different lengths and asymmetric geometric shapes, they cannot "completely overlap" across that entire designated interval. In regards to claim 10 : recites "respective first legs... at least partially overlap and respective second legs... do not overlap." The terms "first legs" and "second legs" lack clear structural boundaries. Because a T-shape or L-shape is a single continuous contact piece, defining where a "first leg" ends and a "second leg" begins is completely arbitrary without explicit geographic markers. In regards to claim 20 : Claim 20 depends on Claim 19. It inherits the identical structural indefiniteness, lack of geometric boundaries, and arbitrary definitions of "first legs" and "second legs" as detailed in Claim 10. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bauer (US 2008/0122075) teaches power semiconductor module (1), comprising: an encapsulation (casting compound package (13)) encapsulating a plurality of power semiconductor dies (power semiconductors (4), paragraph [0026]), the encapsulation comprising a first side, an opposite second side, and lateral sides connecting the first and the second sides (four sidewalls in the width and length directions of the casting compound package (13)); a first power contact (10) and a second power contact (10) electrically coupled to the power semiconductor dies (4); and an isolation part (of the casting compound package (13)) arranged between the first and the second power contacts (the casting compound package (13) has a portion that separates the first and second conductors (10, 11) in figure 2) and electrically isolating the first and the second power contacts from one another, wherein the first and the second power contacts (10, 11) have a flat shape and are stacked (see the flat shapes of conductors 10 and 11 in figure 2) such that broadest surfaces of the first and the second power contacts (10, 11) at least partially overlap (see the overlap in figure 2), wherein a first portion of the first and the second power contacts (10, 11) is parallel to a first plane (x-axis)(see figure 2). Orris (US 2015/0364878) teaches a first and second bent contacts tabs (48, 50). Shimoida et al. (US 7, 042,086) teaches a stacked semiconductor module. Froebel et al. (US 5,585,600) teaches an encapsulated semiconductor chip with bent contact tabs . Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F. 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848 Application/Control Number: 18/609,586 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/609,586 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/609,586 Page 4 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights