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 .
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, the limitation “wherein the first lead is divided into multiple leads” in claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claim 5 is 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 limitation “wherein the first lead is divided into multiple leads” is not clear. That is, one lead cannot be divided into multiple leads; the lead may have multiple extensions or branches. Therefore, the claim language is not clear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-9,11-13,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al., (Okuda) US 2017/0179108.
Regarding claim 1, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, comprising: a conductive metal plate (211,51) including a main surface and a rear surface opposed to each other in a first direction corresponding to a thickness-wise direction of the metal plate(211,51) ; a semiconductor element (111)[0048] including an element front surface that faces in a same direction as the main surface, an element rear surface (backside) opposed to the element front surface, a first electrode (on 111), a control electrode (111b) and a second electrode (back of 111), the first electrode and the control electrode formed on the element front surface (111), the second electrode (21) formed on the element rear surface, the second electrode mounted on the main surface; first (22), second and third leads (22,23)(see FIG. 10) each including a wire connecting portion (connection coupled to wires 31, 32) arranged away from the metal plate as viewed in the first direction; first and second wires (31,32) connecting the first electrode to the wire connecting portion of the first lead (22); a third wire (32) connecting the control electrode (111b) to the wire connecting portion of the second lead; and a fourth wire (31) connecting the first electrode to the wire connecting portion of the third lead, wherein the first and second wires (31) form a combination of furthermost ones of the wires connected to the first lead as viewed in the first direction, the first and second wires (31, multiple wires) have a greater distance between them at the wire connecting portion of the first lead than at the first electrode.
As for the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular distance. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, further comprising an encapsulation resin (6) [0065] that covers the semiconductor element (111), the first to fourth wires, at least a portion of the metal plate, and at least a portion of each of the first to third leads (resin 6 covers them).
Regarding claim 3, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, wherein the first to third leads (22,23) project from a same side surface of the encapsulation resin (6).
Regarding claim 4, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, wherein the wire (31) connecting portion of the first lead (22) has a greater width than the wire connecting portion of the second or third lead.
As for the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular distance. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein the metal plate is formed of copper or aluminum [0153].
Regarding claim 7, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein the rear surface of the metal plate (51) is exposed from the encapsulation resin (6).
Regarding claim 8, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, wherein the main surface of the metal plate (51) is greater than the rear surface of the metal plate.
Regarding claim 9, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor element is a MOSFET [0046], and the first electrode is a source electrode [0047], the second electrode is a drain electrode, the control electrode is a gate electrode, and the third lead is a sense terminal [0047].
Regarding claim 11, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein a direction orthogonal to the first direction and along which each of the first, second and third leads (22,23) extends is a second direction, and a direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction is a third direction, each of the first wire and the second wire (31,32) includes an electrode end connected to the first electrode and a lead end connected to the wire connecting portion of the first lead, the wire connecting portion (part where 31,32 are connected) of the first lead includes a first end and a second end that are opposite ends in the third direction, the lead end of the first wire (31) is connected to a portion of the wire connecting portion of the first lead located closer to the first end than a central portion of the wire (31)connecting portion of the first lead in the third direction, and the lead end of the second wire (31,32) is connected to a portion of the wire connecting portion of the first lead located closer to the second end than the central portion of the wire connecting portion of the first lead in the third direction.
Regarding claim 12, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein the encapsulation resin (6) includes an encapsulation resin rear surface that exposes a rear surface of the metal plate (51) and an encapsulation resin top surface, the encapsulation resin rear surface and the encapsulation resin top surface face opposite sides in the first direction, and the wire connecting portion of the first lead (21) is located closer to the encapsulation resin (6) top surface than the semiconductor element in the first direction.
Regarding claim 13, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device, comprising: a conductive metal plate (51) including a main surface and a rear surface opposed to each other in a first direction corresponding to a thickness-wise direction of the metal plate; a diode element (111) [0183] including an element front surface that faces in a same direction as the main surface, an element rear surface opposed to the element front surface, a first electrode (on 111) formed on the element front surface and a second electrode (211) formed on the element rear surface, the second electrode mounted on the main surface; a first lead (21) arranged away from the metal plate and including a wire (31) connecting portion opposed to the metal plate as viewed in the first direction; and first and second wires (31,32) connecting the first electrode to the wire connecting portion of the first lead, wherein the first and second wires (31,32) have a greater distance between them at the wire connecting portion of the first lead than at the first electrode.
As for the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular distance. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein the first lead is one of a plurality of first leads (22), and the distance at the wire (31,32) connecting portion of the first lead is a distance across the plurality of first leads.
Regarding claim 16, Okuda shows in FIG. 1-13, a semiconductor device wherein the distance at the wire connecting portion (connected to 31,32) of the first lead is a distance within one first lead (22).
Claim(s) 10,14,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda as applied to claims 1-4,6-9,11-13,15,16, and further in view of Kakefu et al., (Kakefu) US 2021/0143132.
Regarding claims 10,14,17, Okuda differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the diode element contains SiC; a semiconductor device wherein the diode element is a Schottky diode, the first electrode is an anode electrode, and the second electrode is a cathode electrode.
Kakefu discloses [0026] a device wherein the diode element contains SiC; a semiconductor device wherein the diode element is a Schottky diode [0018], the first electrode is an anode electrode, and the second electrode is a cathode electrode.
Kakefu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Okuda. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kakefu in the device of Okuda because it will prevent a delay in gate response and provide a high efficiency device [0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights