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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshino, JP 2013-123011 (as cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshino teaches an electronic circuit apparatus, comprising:
at least one semiconductor device 30;
a substrate 10 installed with the semiconductor device and having a through hole 13 at a position facing a back surface of the semiconductor device;
a heat sink 20 located on an opposite side of the substrate from the semiconductor device and having at least one protruding portion 23 protruding toward the back surface of the semiconductor device so as to penetrate into the through hole of the substrate; and
a heat-dissipating material 40 disposed at least between the back surface of the semiconductor device and a top surface of the protruding portion of the heat sink (figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshino teaches the semiconductor device includes a heat-dissipating plate 31 located on the back surface of the semiconductor device, and the heat-dissipating material is disposed between the heat-dissipating plate of the semiconductor device and the top surface of the protruding portion (figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshino teaches the semiconductor device includes:
a semiconductor chip;
a package covering the semiconductor chip (Note: shown as 30, which is a package that contains the semiconductor chip);
a first terminal 40 disposed in a first peripheral edge portion of the package; and
a second terminal 40 disposed in a second peripheral edge portion of the package, which faces the first peripheral edge portion (figure 5).
a longitudinal dimension of the through hole 13 in a direction along the first peripheral edge portion and the second peripheral edge portion of the package (denoted as Line arrow “A”) is greater than a shortitudinal dimension of the through hole in a direction intersecting the first peripheral edge portion and the second peripheral edge portion (denoted as “line B), in plan view.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hoshino teaches a cross-section of the protruding portion along an in-plane direction of the substrate has a non-circular shape (as shown in figure 5, wherein the shape is square), and the through hole of the substrate has the non-circular shape corresponding to the protruding portion (figure 5).
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider, US Patent 5,172,301
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches an electronic circuit apparatus, comprising:
at least one semiconductor device 302;
a substrate 306 installed with the semiconductor device and having a through hole 312 at a position facing a back surface of the semiconductor device;
a heat sink 314 located on an opposite side of the substrate from the semiconductor device and having at least one protruding portion 314b protruding toward the back surface of the semiconductor device so as to penetrate into the through hole of the substrate; and
a heat-dissipating material 304 disposed at least between the back surface of the semiconductor device and a top surface of the protruding portion of the heat sink (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider teaches the top surface of the protruding portion is located within the through hole (figure 3).
Regarding claims 6-7, Schneider teaches a cross-section of the protruding portion along an in-plane direction of the substrate has a non-circular shape (as shown in figure 3-4, wherein the shape is square), and the through hole of the substrate has the non-circular shape corresponding to the protruding portion, wherein the protruding portion in the non-circular shape has a rectangular outer shape with corner portions curved, in plan view (as shown in figures 3-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino, JP 2013-123011 (as cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshino fails to teach the through hole extends to outside of the package beyond other peripheral edge portions of the package except for the first peripheral edge portion and the second peripheral edge portion, in plan view.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider, US Patent 5,172,301
Regarding claim 8, Schneider fails to teach the protruding portion in the non-circular shape has an oval outer shape, in plan view.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino and Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McShane et al, US Patent 5,105,259.
Regarding claim 12, Hoshino and Schneider fail to teach the top surface of the protruding portion has unevenness.
McShane teaches the top surface of the protruding portion has unevenness (column 1, lines 52-55) by teaching the mounting surfaces of a heat sink having a roughened surface (which is uneven) to achieve better adhesion to the semiconductor packaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McShane with that of Hoshino or Schneider because semiconductor manufacturers have used heat sinks having features such as dimples, holes, or roughened surfaces to achieve better adhesion to packaging devices.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino and Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Majumdar et al, US Patent 6,529,062.
Regarding claim 13, both Hoshino and Schneider teach circuit-integrated motor, comprising: the electronic circuit apparatus according to claim 1; wherein the semiconductor device of the electronic circuit apparatus (package 30 of Hoshino in figure 5 and 302 of Schneider in figure 3), the heat sink (20 of Hoshino and 314, Schneider) of the electronic circuit apparatus being a partition wall made of metal and configured to divide a substrate housing chamber where the substrate is housed from a placement region.
Hoshino and Schneider both fail to teach a motor configured to be controlled by an inverter circuit including the semiconductor device of the electronic circuit apparatus, wherein the substrate is housed in the placement region for the motor.
However, Majumdar teaches the use of an inverter circuit, which is part of an controlling integrated chip 12 (figures 4 and 5, which is a semiconductor device) of the electronic circuit apparatus. This inverter circuit receives the DC voltage derived from a direct current obtained by rectifying an AC power supply or derived from a battery, etc., converts the direct current to a three phase (U-phase, V-phase and W-phase) alternating current having desired frequency and voltage by using the switching element driving output signal from the controlling IC 12, and supplies this to a motor. The combination of this teaching of Majumdar with that of Hoshino or Schneider would meet the limitations of “wherein the substrate is housed in the placement region for the motor”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Majumdar with that of Hoshino or Schneider because the inverter circuit is one of several conventionally-sed circuits needed in order to properly operate the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights