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 § 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatae et al. (US 6762491) in view of Singh Bhatti (US 2007/0068666).
Regarding claim 1, Hatae discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
a heat sink (30, fig. 2 and Col. 4);
an insulating substrate (10, fig. 2 and Col. 4);
a bonding material (40, fig. 2 and Col. 4); and
a semiconductor element (11, fig. 2 and Col. 4),
wherein the insulating substrate (10, fig. 2) is bonded to an upper surface of the heat sink (30, fig. 2) through the bonding material (40, fig. 2 and Col. 4),
the semiconductor element (11, fig. 2) is bonded to an upper surface of the insulating substrate (10, fig. 2 and Col. 4),
a plurality of supporters is disposed on the upper surface of the heat sink, in a region
in which the insulating substrate is bonded to the heat sink (50, fig. 2 and Col. 5),
each of the supporter (50, fig. 2) is in contact with the insulating substrate (10, fig. 2), and
the upper surface of the heat sink (30, fig. 2) is not parallel to the upper surface of the insulating substrate (10, fig. 2), in a region overlapping with the region in which the insulating substrate is bonded to the heat sink in a plan view (fig. 2).
Hatae does not disclose a thickness of the heat sink differs depending on a position of the heat sink in an in-plane direction. Hatae discloses a typical plate type heat sink with flat upper and lower surfaces (30, fig. 2).
Singh Bhatti discloses replacing a typical plate type heat sink (10, fig. 1 and Abstract) with a heat sink that has a thickness that differs depending on a position of the heat sink in an in-plane direction (fig. 2 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Hatae’s plate type heat sink with Singh Bhatti’s convex and arcuate in cross section heat sink since Sing Bhatti explicitly discloses the advantages of doing so. Particularly, this allows the heat flux lines to be more evenly spaced and regular in length, as compared to a typical plate with flat upper and lower surfaces (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, by replacing Hatae’s heat sink with Sing Bhatti’s convex and arcuate in cross section heat sink, the resultant would have a lower surface of the heat sink and the upper surface of the insulating substrate are closer to being parallel than the upper surface of the heat sink and the upper surface of the insulating substrate in the region overlapping with the region in which the insulating substrate is bonded to the heat sink in the plan view. (figs. 2, 5-6 would all read on this limitation since a tangent the curvature at a certain point would be exactly parallel, whereas the flat plate type would have no parallel connection)
Regarding claim 3, Sing Bhatti further discloses wherein a lower surface of the heat sink is located below a perimeter of the heat sink, in a center portion of the heat sink (figs. 2, 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Sing Bhatti further discloses wherein a lower surface of the heat sink is a curved surface protruding downward (figs. 2, 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Sing Bhatti further discloses wherein the heat sink at a position on which a first supporter of the plurality of supporters is disposed is thinner than the heat sink at a position on which a second supporter of the plurality of supporters is disposed, (figs. 2, 5-6 all could achieve such results) and the first supporter (50) is higher than the second supporter (52, Hatae, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hatae further discloses wherein each of the supporter is a spacer on the upper surface of the heat sink and in contact with the upper surface of the heat sink (50, 52, fig. 2 and Col. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Hatae further discloses wherein each of the supporter is a supporter being a spacer on the upper surface of the heat sink and in contact with the upper surface of the heat sink, or a supporter including a protrusion integrally formed with the heat sink on the upper surface of the heat sink, and a spacer on the protrusion (50, 52, fig. 2 and Col. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hatae further discloses wherein the spacers included in the supporters have a same height (50, 52, fig. 2 and Col. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hatae further discloses wherein each of the supporter is a protrusion integrally formed with the heat sink on the upper surface of the heat sink (50, 52, fig. 2 and Col. 5).
Regarding claims 10-11, Hatae in view of Sing Bhatti disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, and the method thereof, they do not disclose wherein a terminal is ultrasonic-bonded to the upper surface of the insulating substrate. However, ultrasonic bonding was well known at the time of filing and would therefore be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 5424580 discloses a device with a device with a semiconductor element that is not parallel to the attached heat sink.
US Patent Application Publication 2003/0131973 discloses heat sinks that have a variable thickness depending on a position of the heat sink in an in-plane direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/DOUGLAS M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 10/5/26
Prosecution Insights