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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 9/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uhlig (EP 3806142A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Uhlig et al discloses a power semiconductor module arrangement (Figure 3) comprising: a substrate (Figure 3, 11) arranged in or forming a ground surface of a housing (Figure 3, 7) , the housing comprising sidewalls (Figure 3, sidewalls of housing 7); at least one semiconductor body (Figure 3, 20) arranged on the substrate (Figure 3, 11); a first layer (Figure 3, 5) partly filling the housing (Figure 3, 7) and completely covering the substrate (Figure 3, 7) and at least one semiconductor body (Figure 3, 20) arranged thereon; and a second layer (Figure 3, 6) arranged adjacent to the first layer (Figure 3, 5) ; wherein the first layer (Figure 3, 5) is a liquid or gel-like layer (paragraph 22, silicone gel) , wherein the second layer (Figure 3, 6) is a solid or gel-like layer (paragraph 25, silicon rubber) , wherein the first layer (Figure 3, 5) is arranged between the substrate (Figure 3, 11) and the second layer (Figure 3, 6), and wherein the second layer is arranged distant from a top of the housing (Figure 3, 7) . See Figure 3 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 12-25 and 37-41.
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “wherein the second layer is configured to deform when the first layer expands or contracts during operation of the power semiconductor module arrangement”, the limitation is inherent as the same materials are disclosed by Uhlig .
With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation wherein a cavity (Figure 3, between 7 and 6) inside the housing between the second layer and the top of the housing is filled with air, and wherein the housing comprises an opening arranged to allow air to flow between the cavity and the outside of the housing, Uhlig discloses that the housing is not fully protected against protruding gases in paragraph 19.
With respect to Claim 4, Uhlig discloses wherein the first layer and the second layer each comprise a silicone material. See paragraph 22 (silicone gel) and paragraph 25 (silicone rubber).
With respect to Claim 5, Uhlig discloses wherein the second layer is a cured silicone layer. See paragraphs 25 (silicone rubber) and paragraph 37 of Uhlig.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhlig (EP 3806142A1).
Uhlig et al is relied as discussed above. Moreover, Uhlig et al disclose wherein the housing comprises one or more protrusions attached to the one or more top surface of the housing and extending from the respective top wall into the second layer. See Figure 3, element 4 going through the top of the housing 7 and into the second layer 6; and paragraph 22.
However, Uhlig et al does not disclose wherein the housing comprises one or more protrusions attached to the one or more sidewalls of the housing and extending from the respective sidewall into the second layer.
With respect to Claim 7, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the protrusion (terminal 4 in Figure 3) through a sidewall instead of a top wall of the housing 7, as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the present case, extending through a sidewall instead of the top wall would have been a rearrangement of parts, and in the absence of unobvious results, would have been an obvious modification depending on the space constraints.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhlig (EP 3806142A1) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Kusonoki et al (US 2017/0029571).
Uhlig et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Uhlig et al does not disclose the first layer further comprises a defined amount of heat stabilizer.
Kusonoki et al discloses the addition of heat stabilizers to silicone compositions in semiconductor packages. See paragraph 143.
With respect to Claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add heat stabilizer to the silicone first layer of Uhlig, for its known benefit in the art to provide heat stability to a semiconductor package as disclosed by Kusonoki et al. The use of a known component for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
October 6, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights