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 limitations “a total cross-section”, “a unit cross-section”, and “a cross-sectional area of the matrix resin” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown in the drawings 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a unit cross-sectional area” however the written description fails to provide any description other than recitation. The limitation “a unit cross-sectional area” lacks sufficient description in the specification and is therefore subject to rejection as failing to comply with the written description requirement under 112(a).
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations: “...the ratio of the total cross-sectional area...” The metes and bounds of claim 2 cannot be ascertained since “a ratio” requires another quantity beside the total cross-sectional area in order to be calculated. Furthermore, since the only quantity recited is the total cross-sectional area “a ratio” cannot be calculated and this makes claim 2 indefinite.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 2022/0302081 in view of Ikegami et al. 2015/0207046.
Re claim 1, Hsu teaches: a semiconductor device comprising:
a chip (Chips, [66]) that has a main surface (bottom, Fig. 8);
a main surface electrode (230b, shown in Fig. 6/8) that is arranged on the main surface (interface between 230(b/d), Fig. 6/8);
a terminal electrode (230d, Fig. 6/8) that is arranged on the main surface electrode ();
and a sealing insulator (160, Fig. 8) that covers a periphery (broadest reasonable interpretation applied) of the terminal electrode (230d, Fig. 6/8) on the main surface such as to expose a part of the terminal electrode (230d is exposed where it contacts 203b), and that includes a matrix resin and fillers added into the matrix resin (160 resin, fillers; [79])
yet, appears to be explicitly silent regarding where the matrix resin and fillers have a ratio of a total cross- sectional area with respect to a unit cross-sectional area is higher than a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the matrix resin with respect to the unit cross-sectional area.
Ikegami teaches a resin (11, [60]) with filler added [60] in applied over a chip. Where the amount of filler added to the resin can be used to make the physical properties of the resin/filler material’s liner coefficient of Expansion [60] adjustable.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed would have recognized that adding filler to a resin layer is dependent upon various design parameters that have a variability that follows from various manufacturing conditions.
Therefore: the amount of filler added to a resin layer/matrix is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the result effect variable resin/filler layer 11 for layer 160 as taught by Hsu, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.5).
Re claim 3 Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the terminal electrode (Hsu, 230d, Fig. 6/8) is thicker than the main surface electrode (Hsu, 230b; Fig. 6/8), and the sealing insulator (Hsu, 160; Fig. 6/8) is thicker than the main surface electrode (Hsu, 230b; Fig. 6/8).
Re Claim 4, Hsu in view of Ikegami appears to be explicitly silent regarding: wherein the terminal electrode is thicker than the chip, and the sealing insulator is thicker than the chip.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the relative thickness/dimensions with regards to terminal electrode/chip and sealing insulator/chip is nothing more than a conventional, industry recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize said result effective variable so as to facilitate for provision of operability in accordance with and in the form of routine experimental optimum workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of 3 dimensional structures such as electrode/chip and sealing insulator layer as generally disclosed in the combination of Hsu in view of Ikegami, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the relative thicknesses involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 5, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the matrix resin (Ikegami, 11, [60]) consists of a thermosetting resin (Ikegami, thermosetting resin, [60]).
Re claim 8, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the fillers include at least one of ceramics, oxides (Ikegami, SiO2 silica, [75]), and nitrides.
Re claim 9, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the sealing insulator includes the fillers having different particle sizes (since there is no technology for producing a perfect uniform distributions of filler particles, it is inherent that any distribution of filler particles would have different sizes).
Re claims 12-13, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the terminal electrode (Hsu, 230d, Fig. 6/8) has a terminal surface and a terminal side wall, and the sealing insulator (Hsu, 160, Fig. 8) exposes the terminal surface and covers the terminal side wall (Hsu, Fig. 6/8) and wherein the sealing insulator (Hsu, 160) has an insulating main surface that forms a single flat surface with the terminal surface (Hsu, Fig. 8).
Re claim 14, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the chip has a side surface, and the sealing insulator has an insulating side wall that forms a single flat surface with the side surface (Hsu, Fig. 8).
Re claim 15, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: an insulating film (Hsu, 170) that partially covers the main surface electrode (Hsu, 230b, Fig. 6/8); wherein the sealing insulator (Hsu, 160) has a portion that directly covers (Broadest reasonable interpretation given) the insulating film (Hsu, 170m, Fig. 8).
Re claim 16, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the terminal electrode (Hsu, 230d, Fig. 6/8) has a portion that directly (broadest reasonable interpretation given) covers the insulating film (Hsu, 170m).
Re claim 17, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the insulating film (Hsu, 170m) includes at least one of an inorganic insulating film and an organic insulating film (Hsu, inorganic, [81]).
Re claim 18, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches: wherein the insulating film (Hsu, 170m) is thicker than the main surface electrode (Hsu, 230b), and the sealing insulator (Hsu, 160) is thicker than the insulating film (Hsu, 170m, Fig. 9).
Re claim 20, Hsu teaches a semiconductor chip yes appears explicitly silent regarding wherein the chip includes a monocrystal of a wide bandgap semiconductor.
However, there are many different types of semiconductor chips. Ikegami teaches a wide band gap silicon carbide (SiC, [28]) semiconductor chip.
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the wide band gap semiconductor chip as taught by Ikegami for that taught by Hsu, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 2022/0302081 in view of Ikegami et al. 2015/0207046 and Miyakawa et al. 2010/0164362.
Re claim 6, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches appears to be explicitly silent regarding: wherein the fillers are composed of one of or both of spherical objects and indeterminate objects.
However, there are many types of insulating layers with fillers such as that taught by Miyakawa.
Miyakawa teaches wherein fillers (filler, [186]; in an insulating layer 12) are composed of one of or both of spherical (spherical, [186]) objects and indeterminate objects.
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to substitute the insulating layer 12 including fillers as taught by Miyakawa for the insulating layer 160 that taught by Hsu, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Re claim 7, Hsu in view of Ikegami and Miyakawa teaches: wherein the fillers are composed of the spherical objects (Miyakawa, spherical, [186]).
Re claim 10, Hsu in view of Ikegami appears to be explicitly silent regarding: wherein the fillers each have a particle size of not less than 1 nm and not more than 50 um.
However, there are many different sizes of fillers that are used in the semiconductor arts. One of such sizes is taught by Miyakawa.
Miyakawa teaches wherein the fillers each have a particle size of not less than 1 nm and not more than 50 um (fillers, 0.6- 2.4 um, [212]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to substitute the fillers as taught by Hsu in view of Ikegami with those taught by Miyakawa, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 2022/0302081 in view of Ikegami et al. 2015/0207046, Hagihara 2011/0147927 and Miyakawa et al. 2010/0164362.
Re claim 11, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches a general main surface electrode (Hsu, 230b, shown in Fig. 6/8) and fillers (11, [60]) with filler added [60]) yet, appears to be explicitly silent regarding wherein the fillers include fillers thinner than the main surface electrode and fillers thicker than the main surface electrode.
However, Hagihara teaches a main surface electrode (2, 10 um, [60]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the dimensions of the electrode as taught by Hagihara for that taught by Hsu in view of Ikegami, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
However, Hsu in view of Ikegami and Hagihara appear to remain explicitly silent regarding wherein the fillers include fillers thinner than the main surface electrode (Hagihara, 2, [60]) and fillers thicker than the main surface electrode.
However, Miyakawa teaches a filler composed of two average grain size ranges. 0.6 – 2.4 Mu.m. and 5-20 Mu.m. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these two ranges meet the conditional requirements as set forth by claim 11 with regards to the thickness of the main surface electrode.
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Miyakawa with that taught by Hsu in view of Ikegami and Hagihara, since this would provide the advantage of sufficient thermal conductivity for the insulating layer containing the fillers (Miyakawa, [186]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 2022/0302081 in view of Ikegami et al. 2015/0207046 and Kim et al. 2019/0096825.
Re claim 19, Hsu in view of Ikegami teaches that thickness of fillers is a result effective variable (see rejection of claim 1 above) yet appears to be explicitly silent regarding: wherein said fillers are thicker than the insulating film.
Kim teaches that the thickness of an encapsulation layer can be adjusted to so as to adjust warpage [71].
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed would have recognized that the thickness of an encapsulation layer is dependent upon various design parameters that have a variability that follows from various manufacturing conditions.
Therefore: the thickness of an encapsulation layer 170m as taught by Ikegami is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the teachings of Kim and Hsu in view of Ikegami and to optimize said result effective variable as taught by Man to cooperate with various design parameters consistent with the variability of the required manufacturing conditions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the thickness of the fillers and insulating film so as to arrive at the claimed limitations: “wherein said fillers are thicker than the insulating film”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK LAURENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am - 3pm.
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.
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.
/MARK A LAURENZI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights