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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figure 3A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US 2022/0344236) in view of Kropp (US 2008/0152921).
Shirai teaches a method comprising: providing an adhesive layer (70) between a frame (14C) and a lid (80C), the adhesive layer comprising a major component resin and a coupling agent and being configured to be cured in two stages—a first b-stage curing and a subsequent final curing (See Figures; [0030]-[0033]; [0047]-[0049]). The adhesive layer and major component resin read on the instantly claimed first material and matrix material, respectively. When partially cured to a b-stage, the adhesive layer forms a pre-seal as claimed. The disposition of the adhesive layer between the frame and lid necessarily requires that the adhesive is applied to one or both of these components. The application to either one or both of these surfaces reads on applying the first material to a first surface as claimed.
Shirai does not expressly disclose that the b-stage curing occurs at a first time and temperature while the final curing occurs at a higher temperature and/or for a longer period of time.
Kropp teaches a b-stagable adhesive composition for electronic assemblies, the adhesive undergoing b-stage curing at a first temperature for a first time period and final curing at a second temperature which is higher than the first temperature and/or a second time period which is longer than the first time period to facilitate curing and bonding (See [0003]-[0005]; [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to perform the b-stage and final curing steps of Shirai at differing temperatures and times in the manner disclosed by Kropp. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Kropp that to do so would predictably allow for improved handling of the adhesive layer at the b-stage while avoiding premature full curing of the adhesive layer (See [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding the limitation “the adhesion promoter remains inactive,” Kropp teaches that the second heating step is necessary to activate catalysts or other reaction components to facilitate transformation of the adhesive from the b-stage to a final, cured stage (See [0023]). When considering the teachings of Kropp as they pertain to the method of Shirai, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that activation of the coupling agent of Shirai would occur during the second step to facilitate bonding.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the lid of Shirai reads on the instantly claimed housing, and the frame reads on the instantly claimed substrate or base plate which is part which is a power semiconductor element (See [0030]). Since the adhesive layer is applied between these two components, exactly three possibilities exist for its application: application to the housing, application to the substrate/base plate, or both. Any one of these predictable application areas would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, changes in shape are generally considered routine matters of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that such a change in shape is significant (See MPEP 2144.04). In this case, the presence of a recess or protrusion is a routine matter of design choice, and Applicant has not provided any persuasive evidence that such a shape materially impacts the claimed method. On the contrary, it appears that the claimed method—the crux of which is a two-stage curing technique—proceeds in an identical fashion whether the housing has a flat surface, a recess, or a protrusion.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, it can be seen in the Figures of Shirai that the frame forms a continuous loop. It is reasonable to conclude that the seal which is formed between the frame and lid would occupy the entire loop. The lid (i.e. housing) of Shirai also has side walls (See Fig. 2) such that the adhesive layer extends on lower surfaces of such sidewalls as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Shirai teaches that the adhesive layer can be made from a silicone resin (See [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Kropp teaches that the first temperature may be less than 120°C while the second temperature is between 115°C and 150° (See [0023]). These temperature ranges substantially overlap the instantly claimed ranges. Therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 13, it can be seen in the Figures of Shirai that the frame forms a continuous loop. It is reasonable to conclude that the seal which is formed between the frame and lid would occupy the entire loop, which satisfies the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US 2022/0344236) in view of Kropp (US 2008/0152921) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takigawa (US 5,844,309).
Shirai and Kropp combine to teach a two-stage bonding method, as detailed above. The lid of Shirai reads on the instantly claimed housing, and the frame reads on the instantly claimed substrate or base plate which is part which is a power semiconductor element (See [0030]).
Shirai and Kropp do not expressly disclose applying the adhesive layer via transfer molding by forming the adhesive layer on release sheet, removing the adhesive layer from the release sheet, and applying the adhesive layer to the frame and lid as claimed.
Takigawa teaches an adhesive composition for semiconductor devices, wherein the adhesive is formed on release sheet, applied to an adherend, and separated from the release sheet (See Abstract; col. 13, lines 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to the apply the adhesive layer taught by the combination of Shirai and Kropp by transfer molding because Takigawa teaches that transfer molding was recognized in the prior art as a suitable technique for applying an adhesive layer to an adherend (See Abstract; col. 13, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 3, it can be seen in the Figures of Shirai that the frame forms a continuous loop. It is reasonable to conclude that the seal which is formed between the frame and lid would occupy the entire loop, which satisfies the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US 2022/0344236) in view of Kropp (US 2008/0152921) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujiu (US 2021/0394408).
Shirai and Kropp combine to teach a two-stage bonding method, as detailed above. The lid of Shirai reads on the instantly claimed housing.
Shirai and Kropp do not expressly disclose forming the housing in a mold and adding the adhesive layer to the housing within the mold as claimed.
Fujiu teaches an injection molding method in which a housing (2) is formed in a mold and a leakage elimination member (17) is formed directly onto an outer surface of the housing in the same mold (See Figures; [0038]-[0039]). The leakage elimination member is a seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mold the lid of Shirai in a mold and form the adhesive layer (i.e. pre-seal/seal) directly on the lid in the mold since Fujiu teaches that such a technique was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for formation of a seal on a housing member (See Figures; [0038]-[0039]). Further motivation is provided by the teaching of Fujiu that integrating molding steps within a single mold improves efficiency and quality of the resulting product (See [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights