DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The Specification amendment filed 2/22/24 has been approved and entered into the record.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, allegedly corresponding to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10 and 11, in the reply filed on 7/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because they species are different embodiments as detailed in the restriction dated 5/20/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that elected claim 7 depends from nonelected claim 6, therefore claim 7 is removed from the examined claim set.
Consequently the examined claims are 1, 3-5, 10 and 11
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, 4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Tomioka et al., JP H08222671.
Regarding claim 1, Tomioka (figure 1) teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 22;
a first metal part 41 configured to be disposed on one plate face side of the substrate 22;
a semiconductor element 28 configured to be disposed in a state of being fixed to the first metal part 41 and electrically connected (through 30) to the substrate 22;
a second metal part 53 configured to be disposed on the other plate face side of the substrate 22; and
a connection part 56 that is a metal part connecting the first metal part 41 and the second metal part 53 to each other.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the first metal part 41 (quoting from the Specification:The heat dissipating member 41 is made of a metal material such as aluminum alloy) and the second metal part 53 ((quoting from the Specification:The panel 53 is made of, for example, a metal material having excellent thermal conductivity such as an aluminum alloy) are formed using the same metal material.
As to claim 4, wherein the second metal part is configured by a member of a frame shape 54 (quoting from the Specification:A support frame 54).
In re claim 11, Tomioka (figure 1) teaches an electronic device comprising a semiconductor device including:
a substrate 22;
a first metal part 41 configured to be disposed on one plate face side of the substrate 22;
a semiconductor element 28 configured to be disposed in a state of being fixed to the first metal part 42 and electrically connected (through 30) to the substrate 22;
a second metal part 53 configured to be disposed on the other plate face side of the substrate 22; and
a connection part 56 that is a metal part connecting the first metal part 41 and the second metal part 53 to each other.
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.
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) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al., JP H08222671, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabata, JP 2016122723.
Concerning claim 5, Tomioka fails to teach the second metal part has an opening part exposing the semiconductor element, the semiconductor device further comprising a transparent member configured to be disposed to close the opening part on a side opposite to the substrate side with respect to the second metal part and form a cavity that is a space of a closed shape together with the substrate, the first metal part, and the second metal part.
Kawabata (figure 2) teaches the second metal part 5 has an opening part (filled by 7 & 9) exposing the semiconductor element 10, the semiconductor device 10 further comprising a transparent member 9/7 configured to be disposed to close the opening part (filled by 7 & 9) on a side opposite to the substrate side 2 with respect to the second metal part 8 and form a cavity that is a space of a closed shape together with the substrate 2, the first metal part 4, and the second metal part 5.
the usefulness of Tomioka in other structures.
Pertaining to claim 10, though Tomioka fails to teach the connection part has a protrusion part that is integrally formed with the first metal part, goes through the substrate, and protrudes from the second metal part to a side opposite to the substrate side, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the of in the invention of because teaches . The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). A skilled artisan knows that a integrally formed protrusion is an equivalent to the structure of Tomioka.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 8/7/26
Prosecution Insights