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) 1-6, 8-9, & 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US 20210407890).
Regarding claim 1, Jo discloses that a power module, comprising:
a substrate 210, having a first metal surface 213 (Fig. 7);
a semiconductor component 12, disposed on the first metal surface;
a plurality of pins 130, extending from the first metal surface 213 and configured to be electrically connected to the semiconductor component 12; and
a package body 230, configured to cover the first metal surface 213 and the semiconductor component 12, wherein the package body partially encloses each of the pins 130, wherein there is a gap between each two adjacent pins, and a separating element is disposed in each gap to increase a creepage distance between the two adjacent pins (Fig. 1, note 131 & 121, note: 212 has large distance).
Reclaim 2, Jo discloses that the plurality of pins extend along a first axis, and when viewed along the first axis, the plurality of pins are arranged in a matrix (Fig. 1).
Reclaim 3, Jo discloses that when viewed along the first axis, the separating elements include a plurality of first separating elements, each of the first separating elements has a strip-shaped structure which extends along a second axis, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 4, Jo discloses that when viewed along the first axis, the separating elements further include a plurality of second separating elements, each of the second separating elements has a strip-shaped structure which extends along a third axis, and the third axis is perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 5, Jo discloses that the first separating elements are connected to the second separating elements, and the first separating elements and the second separating elements are staggered with each other (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 6, Jo discloses that each of the first separating elements is a protruding structure or a concave structure, and each of the second separating elements is a protruding structure or a concave structure (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 8, Jo discloses that the package body is further provided with four third separating elements, and when viewed along the first axis, the four third separating elements form a rectangle which surrounds the pins, the first separating elements and the second separating elements (Fig 1 & 7, and repeating the same patterns).
Reclaim 9, Jo discloses that the first separating elements, the second separating elements and the third separating elements are made of elastic materials, and material of the package body is different from the materials of the first separating elements, the second separating elements and the third separating elements (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 11, Jo discloses that the substrate further has a second metal surface configured to dissipate heat generated by the power module to external environment, wherein the first metal surface and the second metal surface are located on opposite sides of the substrate, and a portion of the second metal surface is exposed from the package body (note: all metal has a function of heat dissipation).
Regarding claim 12, Jo discloses that a power module, comprising:
a substrate 211, having a first metal surface 213 (Fig. 7);
a semiconductor component 12, disposed on the first metal surface 212;
a plurality of pins 130, extending from the first metal surface and configured to be electrically connected to the semiconductor component;
a package body 230, configured to cover the first metal surface 213 and the semiconductor component 12, wherein the package body partially encloses each of the pins 130; and
a first separating element 163 or 110, disposed on the package body 230 and surrounding the pins 130 (Fig. 7).
Reclaim 13, Jo discloses that the pins extend along a first axis, and when viewed along the first axis, the first separating element has two first strip-shaped portions and two second strip-shaped portions, the two first strip-shaped portions extend along a second axis, and the two second strip-shaped portions extend along a third axis, where the first axis, the second axis and the third axis are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 14, Jo discloses that each of the two first strip- shaped portions and the two second strip-shaped portions is a protruding structure or a concave structure (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 15, Jo discloses that the power module further includes a second separating element which is disposed on one side of the first separating element, and the second separating element extends along the second axis (Fig. 1 & 7).
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) 7, 10, & 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (US 20210407890).
Reclaim 7, Jo discloses fails to specify that a width of the protruding structure or the concave structure is greater than or equal to 1 mm.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain width of the protruding structure, because it would have been to obtain a certain width of the protruding structure to achieve less interference between electrical connection or pins.
Reclaim 10, Jo discloses that each of the third separating elements is another protruding structure or another concave structure (note: including solder balls),
Jo fails to specify that a width of each of the third separating elements is greater than or equal to 1 mm.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain width of each of the third separating elements, because it would have been to obtain a certain width of each of the third separating elements to achieve less interference between electrical connection or pins.
Reclaim 16, Jo fails to specify that that a width of each of the first separating element and each of the second separating element is greater than 1 mm, and a distance between the second separating element and the first separating element is greater than 1 mm.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain width of each of the first separating element and each of the second separating element, because it would have been to obtain a certain width of each of the first separating element and each of the second separating element to achieve less interference between electrical connection or pins.
Reclaim 17, Jo discloses that the power module further includes a third separating element, the second separating element is located between the first separating element and the third separating element, and the third separating element extends along the second axis (Fig. 1 & 7).
Reclaim 18, Jo fails to specify that a width of the third separating element is greater than 1 mm, and a distance between the third separating element and the second separating element is greater than 1 mm.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain width of the third separating element and a distance between the third separating element and the second separating element and , because it would have been to obtain a certain width of the third separating element and a distance between the third separating element and the second separating element to achieve less interference between electrical connection or pins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
