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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2024 and 2/19/2025. The submission 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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oka et al. US 2010/0133684.
Re claim 1, Oka teaches a power module structure (fig1), comprising:
a substrate (1 and 2, fig1, [32]);
a chip (5, fig1, [31]) disposed on the substrate;
a first metal structure (7 with larger diameter, fig1 and 2, [38]) disposed on the substrate;
a second metal structure (7 with smaller diameter, fig1, [38]) disposed on the substrate, wherein, from a cross-sectional view (fig2), the first metal structure has a larger width than that of the second metal structure (7, fig2); and
a packaging material (11, fig1 and 2, [34]) covering the substrate and the chip,
wherein portions of the first metal structure and the second metal structure are exposed from an upper surface of the packaging material (top surface of 7 exposed from 11, fig1).
Re claim 3, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chip comprises a power component (5, fig1, [31]).
Re claim 4, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first metal structure and the second metal structure comprise copper (7, fig1, [38]), silver or aluminum (7, fig1, [38]).
Re claim 5, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein upper surfaces of the first metal structure and the second metal structure (upper surface of 7, fig1 and 2) are on the same plane as the upper surface of the packaging material (upper surface of 11, fig1).
Re claim 8, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising another first metal structure (another 7 with smaller diameter, fig2, [38]) disposed on the substrate, wherein a portion of the other first metal structure is exposed from the upper surface of the packaging material (top surface of 7 exposed from 11, fig1 and 2).
Re claim 9, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 8, wherein, from a top view, the first metal structure and the other first metal structure have different areas (7, fig2).
Re claim 10, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 8, wherein, from a top view, the first metal structure (7 with larger diameter, fig1 and 2, [38]) and the other first metal structure (another 7 with smaller diameter, fig2, [38]) have different shapes.
Re claim 11, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein, from a top view, the first metal structure and the other first metal structure comprise a rectangle, a triangle or a circle in shape (7, fig2, [38]).
Re claim 13, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first metal structure further comprises a through hole (tube 7 with center hole, fig1 and 2, [38]).
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oka et al. US 2012/0098138.
Re claim 1, Oka teaches a power module structure (fig1), comprising:
a substrate (1 and 2, fig1, [26]);
a chip (5, fig1, [27]) disposed on the substrate;
a first metal structure (wide 6 and 10, fig1, [32, 8, 42]) disposed on the substrate;
a second metal structure (narrow 6 and 11, fig1, [32, 8, 42]) disposed on the substrate, wherein, from a cross-sectional view (fig1), the first metal structure has a larger width than that of the second metal structure (fig1); and
a packaging material (7, fig1, [47]) covering the substrate and the chip,
wherein portions of the first metal structure and the second metal structure are exposed from an upper surface of the packaging material (top surface of 11 and 10 exposed from 7, fig1).
Re claim 6, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein upper surfaces of the first metal structure and the second metal structure are higher than the upper surface of the packaging material (top surface of 11 and 10 above 7, fig1).
Re claim 7, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein upper surfaces of the first metal structure and the second metal structure (top surface of 6 not overlapping with 11 or 10, fig1) are lower than the upper surface of the packaging material (7, fig1, [28]).
Re claim 12, Oka teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein, from a cross-sectional view, the first metal structure comprises a rectangle (10, fig1 and 3, [8, 42]) or an irregular shape.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. US 2010/0133684 in view of Tsai et al. US 2017/0317014.
Re claim 2, Oka does not explicitly show teaches the power module structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises aluminum oxide.
Oka teaches layer 2 as a high thermal conductive insulating layer ([31]).
Tsai teaches insulating layer with added aluminum oxide fillers to increase thermal conductivity (100, fig9A, [42]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Oka and Tsai to add aluminum oxide fillers in the insulating layer. The motivation to do so is to increase thermal conductivity for the layer (Tsai, [42]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, 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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights