Application No.: 17/190,261
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-27 are pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`Claims 1, 8, 11, 14-15 and 23 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim
`
`language and to more clearly define the present subject matter. Claims 12 and 16 have been
`
`cancelled and claim 27 has been added. No new matter has been added.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/ortheart, in the Office Action,
`
`should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicants with the stated
`
`reasoning, regardless of whether or not these remarks specifically address any particular
`
`commentfrom the Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowance ofall pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the claim amendment and the following remarks.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13-15, 17-22 and 24-26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda (U.S. 2014/0183547) in view of Wilson (JP S62-259462), Israel (U.S.
`
`2016/0005680) and Sutardja (US 7,528,013). Claims 2-3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja, and further in view of
`
`Harndenet al. (U.S. 2003/0062601). Claims 5-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja and further in view of Chia (U.S.
`
`2007/0130759). Claims 11, 12, 16 and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja and further in view of Otremba
`
`(U.S. 2014/0097528). Without conceding any correctness of the rejections, Applicant traverses
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-27 are pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`Claims 1, 8, 11, 14-15 and 23 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim
`
`language and to more clearly define the present subject matter. Claims 12 and 16 have been
`
`cancelled and claim 27 has been added. No new matter has been added.
`
`Entry of various comments regarding the claims and/ortheart, in the Office Action,
`
`should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicants with the stated
`
`reasoning, regardless of whether or not these remarks specifically address any particular
`
`commentfrom the Office Action.
`
`Reconsideration of this application for allowance ofall pending claims is hereby
`
`respectfully requested in view of the claim amendment and the following remarks.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13-15, 17-22 and 24-26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda (U.S. 2014/0183547) in view of Wilson (JP S62-259462), Israel (U.S.
`
`2016/0005680) and Sutardja (US 7,528,013). Claims 2-3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja, and further in view of
`
`Harndenet al. (U.S. 2003/0062601). Claims 5-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja and further in view of Chia (U.S.
`
`2007/0130759). Claims 11, 12, 16 and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Wilson, Israel and Sutardja and further in view of Otremba
`
`(U.S. 2014/0097528). Without conceding any correctness of the rejections, Applicant traverses
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/190,261
`
`these rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant submits that the limitation “a distance from the second side to a center of the
`
`die pad in a plan view of the semiconductor device is longer than a distance from thefirst side to
`
`the center of the die pad” of claim 1 would not have been obvious overthe cited references. In
`
`claim 1, the first side and the second side are two opposed sides and longersides of the
`
`rectangular package.
`
`In the present Office Action, the Examinerasserted that FIGS. 2 and 3 of Wilson disclose
`
`this feature.
`
`However, in Wilson, the die shifts in the left-right direction (along the longer side), while
`
`in the present application, the chip shifts in the up-down direction (along the shorter side). Thue,
`
`Wilson fails to disclose that a distance from the second side to a center of the die pad in a plan
`
`view of the semiconductor device is longer than a distance from thefirst side to the center of the
`
`die pad” of claim 1.
`
`In addition, even if, arguendo, Wilson were combinable with Ikeda, the arrangement of
`
`the source/drain terminals of Ikeda would likely be disposed as disclosed by Wilson, and in such
`
`a case, the resultant structure would be that the wire arrangement in which the source/drain
`
`terminals are located along the shorter side as disclosed by Wilson. As such, the aforementioned
`
`limitation of claim 1 would not have been obvious overthe cited references.
`
`Further, none of the cited references disclose that the semiconductor device further
`
`includes a source sensor terminal disposed alongthefirst side of the semiconductor device, the
`
`source sensor terminal is separated from the die pad, and the two source terminals, the source
`
`sensor terminal and the gate terminal are disposed along thefirst side of the semiconductor
`
`device in this order, as recited by claim 1.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/190,261
`
`Moreover, none ofthe cited references disclose that the source sensor terminal and the
`
`source pad are connected with at least one third bonding wire, and a numberofthe first bonding
`
`wires connecting each source terminal among the two source terminals and the source pad1s
`
`greater than a numberofthe at least one third bonding wire, as recited by claim 1.
`
`Assuch, claim | andall claims dependent thereon, including new claim 27, are
`
`patentable over the cited references.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/190,261
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully responded to all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 1s
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 505992 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RIMON,P.C.
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Phone/Fax: 571-765-7717
`Email: takashi.saito@rimonlaw.com
`Date: February 22, 2024
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondence address.
`
`10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
