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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKUMURA JP H10209372 A (hereinafter OKUMURA).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 1 of OKUMURA discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
an insulating substrate 11;
a first circuit pattern C1, a second circuit pattern G1, a third circuit pattern 27, and a fourth circuit pattern 26 arranged on the insulating substrate;
a semiconductor chip (1 and 2 – see fig. 2) and a first electrode C1 arranged on the first circuit pattern;
a second electrode G1 disposed on the second circuit pattern;
a third electrode ES1 disposed on the third circuit pattern 27; and
a fourth electrode E1 disposed on the fourth circuit pattern 26, wherein
a pad 13 is connected to the second circuit pattern G1 via first wiring 18, the pad being disposed on the semiconductor chip,
a surface of the semiconductor chip 1 and the third circuit pattern 27 are connected via second wiring (middle 19 and 21 combination form a wiring),
the surface of the semiconductor chip and the fourth circuit pattern 26 are connected via third wiring (right 19 - see 19 connected to 2 to 20 to 26), the second wiring and the third wiring are arranged on a same side of the surface of the semiconductor chip in plan view, and
the second wiring and the third wiring are in parallel (see 19 portion of each are parallel) with each other in plan view (see right 19 and middle 19 are parallel), and
the first wiring 18 is disposed on an opposite side of the surface of the semiconductor chip from the third wiring in plan view.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 1 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the fourth circuit pattern is disposed between the first circuit pattern and the third circuit pattern, and the third wiring is shorter than the second wiring (see 19 alone is shorter the 19 and 21 combination).
Regarding claim 3, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the semiconductor chip separately includes a switching element 1 and a freewheeling element 2, and fourth wiring 19 connecting a surface of the switching element and a surface of the freewheeling element is disposed on the opposite side of the surface of the semiconductor chip.
Regarding claim 4, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the semiconductor chip separately includes a switching element 1 and a freewheeling element 2, and fourth wiring 19 connecting a surface of the switching element and a surface of the freewheeling element is disposed on the opposite side of the surface of the semiconductor chip.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 10, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 11, fig. 2 of OKUMURA wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 12, fig. 2 of OKUMURA wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKUMURA .
Regarding claim 5, OKUMURA discloses claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring.
However, in Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of OKUMURA wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring in order to mee the applicant’s design requirement.
Regarding claim 6, OKUMURA discloses claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of OKUMURA wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring in order to mee the applicant’s design requirement.
Regarding claim 7, OKUMURA discloses claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of OKUMURA wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring in order to mee the applicant’s design requirement.
Regarding claim 8, OKUMURA discloses claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of OKUMURA wherein the second wiring is disposed to extend above the third wiring in order to mee the applicant’s design requirement.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 2 of OKUMURA wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 14, fig. 2 of OKUMURA wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 2 of OKUMURA discloses wherein the first electrode is a collector electrode, the second electrode is a gate electrode, the third electrode is a first emitter electrode, and the fourth electrode is a second emitter electrode.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights