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 statements (IDS) submitted on June 7, 2024 and November 6, 2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (claims 11-21) in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11, 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wieneke Kessler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0146272 A1) in view of Fujino et al. (Pub. No. : US 2025/0149399 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wieneke Kessler et al. discloses a power module, comprising: a substrate comprising a first metallized side and a second metallized side separated from one another by an electrically insulative body (Par. 0027; Fig. 3B – substrate 122; first metallized side 134; second metallized side 132; electrically insulative body 130);
PNG
media_image1.png
382
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a power semiconductor die attached to the first metallized side of the substrate (Par. 0027; Fig. 3B – power semiconductor dies 124); an electrically insulative enclosure laterally enclosing the power semiconductor dies (Par. 0027; Fig. 3B – electrically insulative enclosure 152); an electrical interface for the power semiconductor dies (Par. 0027; Fig. 3B – electrical interface 128); and a first metallic fastener jutting out from a first exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure (Par. 0029; Fig. 3B – first metallic fastener 139), wherein a creepage distance between the first metallic fastener and a neighboring conductor of the electrical interface includes the first exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure, a first interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure that opposes the first exterior side face, and a surface of the electrically insulative enclosure that extends between the first exterior side face and the first interior side face (Fig. 3B). Wieneke Kessler et al. does not explicitly disclose a plurality of power semiconductor dies attached to the first metallized side of the substrate; and wherein a combined height of the electrically insulative enclosure and the substrate is 6 mm or less. However, Fujino et al. teaches a plurality of power semiconductor dies attached to the first metallized side of the substrate (Par. 0029-0033; Fig. 1 – power semiconductor dies 21 and 22; first metallized side 12; substrate 10A); and wherein a combined height of the electrically insulative enclosure and the substrate is 6 mm or less (Par. 0030; Fig. 1 – this prior art teaches the thickness of the housing is 6 mm).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In summary, Wieneke Kessler et al. talks about the thickness of the enclosure but does not provide any numerical value. It mentions that creepage distance can be increased by increasing the size of the package (Par. 0002) but is not in line with customer’s expectation of a smaller package. Fujion et al., on the other hand, teaches a power module with thickness as low as 6 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Fujion et al. to adapt a power module, comprising: a plurality of power semiconductor dies attached to the first metallized side of the substrate; and wherein a combined height of the electrically insulative enclosure and the substrate of Wieneke Kessler et al. is 6 mm or less in order to have a power module with much functionalities but still keeping the footprint small.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 11, discloses the power module, further comprising: a second metallic fastener jutting out from a second exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure opposite the first exterior side face, wherein a creepage distance between the second metallic fastener and a neighboring conductor of the electrical interface includes the second exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure, a second interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure that opposes the second exterior side face, and a surface of the electrically insulative enclosure that extends between the second exterior side face and the second interior side face (Par. 0029; Fig. 3B – second metallic fastener 137).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 11, discloses the power module, wherein the electrical interface comprises a plurality of conductors each comprising a pin, and wherein each pin is attached to one of the substrate or a semiconductor die (Par. 0029; Fig. 3B – pins 128).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 18, discloses the power module, wherein one or more of the pins is attached to the substrate by a press-fit or soldered connection to a rivet that is attached to the substrate, and wherein the electrically insulative coating covers a lower part but not an upper part of each rivet (Par. 0036; Fig. 6).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wieneke Kessler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0146272 A1) and Fujino et al. (Pub. No. : US 2025/0149399 A1), as applied to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 11, discloses the power module, further comprising an electrically insulative coating applied to at least part of the first metallized side of the substrate, at least part of the power semiconductor dies, and at least part of the electrical interface (Wieneke Kessler et al. - Par. 0027-0029; Fig. 3B – electrically insulative coating is part of encapsulation material 152 that is applied to at least part of the first metallized side 134 of the substrate 122, at least part of the power semiconductor dies 124, and at least part of the electrical interface 128). Modified Wieneke Kessler et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrically insulative coating having an average thickness of 2 mm or less. However, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., at least, implicitly teaches the electrically insulative coating having an average thickness of 3.5 mm or less (Fujino et al. - Par. 0030-0034; Fig. 1 – this prior art teaches that the combined thickness of the substrate and power semiconductor die is about 2.5 mm; so the thickness of the electrically insulative coating layer is at least, less than 3.5 mm; it is understood that the said thickness is a result effective variable. Making the insulative coating too thin might result in loss of its functionalities. Making it too thick, on the other hand is uncalled for as this is not financially prudent. Modified Wieneke Kessler et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the power module, further comprising wherein the electrically insulative coating having an average thickness of 2 mm or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the power module, further comprising wherein the electrically insulative coating having an average thickness of 2 mm or less, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 15, discloses the power module, wherein the creepage distance between the first metallic fastener and a nearest conductor of the electrical interface includes a portion of a surface of the electrically insulative coating (Wieneke Kessler et al. - Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 15, discloses the power module, wherein the electrically insulative coating comprises a jetted compound comprising an insulating polymer (Wieneke Kessler et al. – Par. 0023; “jetted compound” is understood to be a compound which is formed through a jetting process; since this is a product claim, product by process limitation does not carry any patentable weight; Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. 14/583291).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wieneke Kessler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0146272 A1) and Fujino et al. (Pub. No. : US 2025/0149399 A1), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Beyer et al. (Pub. No. : WO 2021/116192 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 11, does not explicitly disclose the power module, wherein an exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an outer perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure However, Beyer et al. teaches the power module, wherein an exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an outer perimeter of the
PNG
media_image3.png
372
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
electrically insulative enclosure (Page 7 & 11; Fig. 2 – this prior art teaches a housing 110 with a rib structure comprising a plurality of alternating ribs 124 and valleys 126; the rib structure help increase a creepage distance). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Beyer et al. to adapt the power module, wherein an exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an outer perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure of modified Wieneke Kessler et al. in order to increase creepage distance.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wieneke Kessler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0146272 A1) and Fujino et al. (Pub. No. : US 2025/0149399 A1), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Fukuda (Pub. No. : US 2023/0335450 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Wieneke Kessler et al., as applied to claim 11, does not explicitly disclose the power module, wherein an interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an inner perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure. However, Fukuda teaches the power module, wherein an interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an inner perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure (Par. 0068-0073; Figs. 5-6 – this prior art teaches a protruding ridge 191
PNG
media_image4.png
412
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
that extends along at least a part of an inner perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure 4; the help increase a creepage distance from the baseplate to the terminal 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Fukuda to adapt the power module, wherein an interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure comprises a protruding ridge that extends along at least a part of an inner perimeter of the electrically insulative enclosure of Wieneke Kessler et al. in order to increase creepage distance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kajihara et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0175141 A1)– This prior art teaches a power module, comprising: a substrate comprising a first metallized side (2) and a second metallized side (25A) separated from one another by an electrically insulative body (8); a plurality of power semiconductor dies (1) attached to the first metallized side (2) of the substrate; an electrically insulative enclosure (7) laterally enclosing the power semiconductor dies; an electrical interface for the power semiconductor dies; and a first metallic fastener (4) jutting out from a first exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure, wherein a creepage distance between the first metallic fastener and a neighboring conductor of the electrical interface includes the first exterior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure, a first interior side face of the electrically insulative enclosure that opposes the first exterior side face, and a surface of the electrically insulative enclosure that extends between the first exterior side face and the first interior side face, (Fig. 22)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
08/19/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights