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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the method for producing an electronic assembly as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specifically, Figure 3 does not show the assembly steps as described in the specification.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to for mislabeling the figures included with the application. Specifically, pages 13-14 of the specification submitted 09 March 2023 does not match the drawings submitted 09 March 2023. Correction of the specification to reference the correct figures is required.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to:
Claim 18 contains the typo “ap-plied” in line 1. Examiner suggests correction to instead say “applied”.
Claim 22 contains the typos “mod-ules” in line 1 and “where-in” in line 3. Examiner suggests correction to instead say “modules” and “wherein”.
Claim 26 contains the typo “cop-per” in line 1. Examiner suggests correction to instead say “copper”.
Claim 31 contains the typo “ap-plied” in line 1. Examiner suggests correction to instead say “applied”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 19-22, 24, 26, 28, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16 and 24 recites the limitation "the second side of the carrier element" in line 4 and lines 5-6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this limitation to refer a second side of the carrier element opposite the first side.
Additionally, the typography used in submitted claim 16 makes it unclear when the claimed step of “providing a heat sink” ends. For example, it is not clear to examiner if the step “arranging the copper layer of the carrier element” is intended to apply only to the step “…or providing a heat sink having at least one flat depression in at least one side, wherein a further copper layer is applied in the depression”, or to apply to the entire set of “or” elements. Examiner is interpreting the step beginning “arranging the copper layer” to apply to each of the previous “providing a heat sink” steps, in accordance with applicant’s originally submitted PCT claims.
Claims 19 (line 2 and line 4), 26 (line 2), 32 (line 2 and line 4) and 33 (line 2 and line 4) recite the limitation “at least essentially flush”. The term “at least essentially flush” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least essentially flush” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner is interpreting the phrase “at least essentially flush” to refer to two elements each meeting at a face.
Claims 20 and 34-35 recite the limitation "an electrical power module" in line 1 of each of the claims. However, it is unclear whether this recited power module is intended to refer to the same “at least one electrical power module” recited in claim 16 line 1-2. Examiner is interpreting the recited “an electrical power module” in claim 20 and 34-35 to mean “the at least one electrical power module”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "another heat sink" in line 1. However, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the heat sink recited in claim 16 line 1. Examiner is interpreting the “another heat sink” recited in claim 21 to be referring to the same heat sink recited in claim 1.
Examiner also notes that, if the “another heat sink” recited in claim 21 is intended to mean “a second heat sink”, then objection to the drawings would instead be appropriate as only one heat sink is shown in the drawings (Figure 2, heat sink 6).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a common further copper layer" in line 2. However, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the “further copper layer” recited in claim 1 lines 8-10. Examiner is interpreting the “common further copper layer” in claim 22 to limit the power modules to each share a single “further copper layer”, as disclosed in applicant specification ¶0072.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "multiple electrical power modules" in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the same “at least one electrical power module” recited in claim 24 lines 1-2. Examiner is interpreting the “multiple electrical power modules” recited in claim 28 to mean “the at least one electrical power module”.
Examiner notes that, due to their dependence on rejected claims, all of claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b). For the purpose of compact prosecution, each of these claims are being examined on their merits in this office action, as best understood by the examiner.
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.
(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 16-17, 19, 22, 24-26, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120140420 (Soyano et al).
As to Claim 16, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches a method for producing an electronic assembly (Soyano Fig 11) comprising a heat sink (10B) and at least one electrical power module (two modules 40 shown), wherein the electrical power module has an electrical circuit (42) and a plate-shaped carrier element (41a), wherein the electrical circuit is arranged on a first side of the carrier element (42 on top side of 41a) and the second side of the carrier element has a copper layer in at least some areas (layer 41c may be a copper foil, ¶0057), the method comprising:
providing the at least one electrical power module (40),
providing a heat sink having at least one flat depression in at least one side (10B having hole “H” on top side) and
applying a further copper layer in the flat depression, or providing a heat sink and applying a further copper layer to form a flat depression, or providing a heat sink having at least one flat depression in at least one side, wherein a further copper layer is applied in the depression (copper member 30 provided in H of 10B, ¶0098),
arranging the copper layer of the carrier element on the further copper layer (41c above 30), and
connecting the copper layer to the further copper layer to fasten the electrical power module on the heat sink (41c connected to 30 with solder 45 ¶0098, thereby fastening 40 to 10B).
As to Claim 17, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, and further teaches wherein the copper layer is connected to the further copper layer by sintering and/or by soldering (41c connected to 30 by solder 45, ¶0098).
As to Claim 19, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, and further teaches wherein a third copper layer is used (30 is a copper member, ¶0098), which after application is at least essentially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression after application, or a heat sink having the third copper layer, which is at least substantially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression, is provided (Fig 5 shows 30 filling hold to be flush with the top of the heat sink 10B).
As to Claim 22, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, and further teaches wherein multiple electrical power modules are fastened on a common further copper layer or the side of the heat sink has multiple depressions (Fig 11 two depressions in 10B), in each of which a third copper layer is applied (30 in each hole H), wherein multiple power modules are each fastened on one of the multiple third copper layers (each 40 on corresponding 30).
As to Claim 24, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches an electronic assembly (Fig 11) comprising a heat sink (10B) and at least one electrical power module (module 40), wherein the heat sink has at least one side with at least one flat depression (hole “H” on top side of 10B), wherein the electrical power module has an electrical circuit (42) and a plate-shaped carrier element (41a), wherein the electrical circuit is arranged on a first side of the carrier element (42 on top side of 41a) and the electrical power module is fastened on the heat sink via a copper ply (comprising layers 41c, 45, and 30, wherein 41c may be copper ¶0057, 30 may be a copper layer ¶0098, and 45 is a solder ¶0098) arranged between the second side of the carrier element and the heat sink, wherein the copper ply is arranged at least partially in the depression (41c+45+30 partially in hole “H”).
As to Claim 25, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24, and further teaches wherein the copper ply is formed from a copper layer (41c) and a further copper layer (30), which are connected by sintering and/or by soldering (connecting solder 17).
As to Claim 26, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 25, and further teaches wherein the further copper layer is at least essentially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or the further copper layer completely fills the depression (Fig 5 shows copper layer 30 filling hole).
As to Claim 28, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24, and further teaches wherein multiple electrical power modules are fastened on a common copper ply or the side of the heat sink has multiple depressions (Fig 11, top side of 10B has multiples holes “H”) in each of which a copper ply is applied (Fig 11B, hole contains copper ply comprising 41c+45+30), wherein multiple power modules are each fastened on one of the multiple copper plies (each module 40 fastened to corresponding ply).
As to Claim 32, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 17, and further teaches wherein a third copper layer is used (third copper layer being a second of layers 30 in Fig 11), which after application is at least essentially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression after application, or a heat sink having the third copper layer, which is at least substantially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression, is provided (Fig 5 shows first and second 30 completely filling the hole “H”).
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.
Claims 18, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano as applied to claims 16 and 24 above, and further in view of US 20120276403 (Nakagawa et al).
As to Claim 18, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the further copper layer is applied in the depression by a roll-plating process and/or the further copper layer is applied by a rollplating process to form the depression.
Nakagawa teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches the use of roll plating (also known as electroplating) to apply a copper layer to a heat sink (Nakagawa ¶0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method of combining copper layers to a heat sink and an electronic module taught by Soyano with the method of roll plating to apply a copper layer taught by Nakagawa in order to form a direct contact between the two metal layers, thereby increasing heat dissipation efficiency between the module and the heat sink.
As to Claim 31, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches method as claimed in claim 17, wherein the further copper layer is applied in the depression by a roll-plating process and/or the further copper layer is applied by a rollplating process to form the depression.
Nakagawa teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches the use of roll plating (also known as electroplating) to apply a copper layer to a heat sink (Nakagawa ¶0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method of combining copper layers to a heat sink and an electronic module taught by Soyano with the method of roll plating to apply a copper layer taught by Nakagawa in order to form a direct contact between the two metal layers, thereby increasing heat dissipation efficiency between the module and the heat sink.
As to Claim 33, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, the combination of Soyano and Nakagawa teaches the method as claimed in claim 18. Soyano further teaches wherein a third copper layer is used (third copper layer being a second of layers 30 in Fig 11), which after application is at least essentially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression after application, or a heat sink having the third copper layer, which is at least substantially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression, is provided (Fig 5 shows first and second 30 completely filling the hole “H”).
Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20200303267 (Higuchi).
As to Claim 20, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein an electrical power module is provided, but fails to explicitly the electrical circuit of which is surrounded by a potting material.
Higuchi teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches the electrical circuit (Higuchi Fig 1B, chip 10) being surrounded by a potting material (10 surrounded by 130, which is a sealing resin ¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method having an electronic module taught by Soyano with the surrounding of the module with a potting material taught by Higuchi in order to protect the module from ambient environment, thereby increasing the working life of the module.
As to Claim 34, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein an electrical power module is provided, but fails to explicitly the electrical circuit of which is surrounded by a potting material.
Higuchi teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches the electrical circuit (Higuchi Fig 1B, chip 10) being surrounded by a potting material (10 surrounded by 130, which is a sealing resin ¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method having an electronic module taught by Soyano with the surrounding of the module with a potting material taught by Higuchi in order to protect the module from ambient environment, thereby increasing the working life of the module.
Claims 21, 23, 27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano as applied to claims 16 and 24 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,966,291 (Bäumel et al, hereinafter "Temic").
As to Claim 21, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, but fails to explicitly teach wherein through the interior of the heat sink extends a cooling channel through which a cooling medium can flow, wherein at least one cooling fin projecting into the cooling channel is formed opposite to the depression.
Temic teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches a heat sink (Temic Fig 1, cooling unit 2) the interior of which extends a cooling channel (opening in 2) through which a cooling medium can flow (cooling medium 23 through channel Col 3 lines 17-20), wherein at least one cooling fin projecting into the cooling channel is formed opposite to the depression (221 opposite to devices 11, which in Soyano is the location of the depression).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method for combining an electronic module with a heat sink taught by Soyano with the heat sink containing within a cooling channel and protrusions in the channel taught by Temic in order to further improve cooling of the module, thereby improving performance.
As to Claim 23, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the electrical power module is designed as a half-bridge. Examiner notes that the limitation “designed as a half-bridge” is being interpreted to mean “is a half-bridge”.
Temic teaches a method similar to that of Soyano and explicitly teaches the modules being arranged as half-bridges (Temic Fig 2, half-bridges HB1-HB6; see also Col 2 line 60 – Col 3 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the general electronic modules taught by Soyano with the half-bridge circuits taught by Temic. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 27, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24, but fails to explicitly teach wherein through the interior of the heat sink extends a cooling channel through which a cooling medium can flow, wherein at least one cooling fin projecting into the cooling channel is formed opposite to the depression.
Temic teaches an assembly similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches a heat sink (Temic Fig 1, cooling unit 2) the interior of which extends a cooling channel (opening in 2) through which a cooling medium can flow (cooling medium 23 through channel Col 3 lines 17-20), wherein at least one cooling fin projecting into the cooling channel is formed opposite to the depression (221 opposite to devices 11, which in Soyano is the location of the depression).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the assembly comprising an electronic module with a heat sink taught by Soyano with the heat sink containing within a cooling channel and protrusions in the channel taught by Temic in order to further improve cooling of the module, thereby improving performance.
As to Claim 29, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24, but does not explicitly teach wherein the electrical power module is a half-bridge.
Temic teaches a method similar to that of Soyano and explicitly teaches the modules being arranged as half-bridges (Temic Fig 2, half-bridges HB1-HB6; see also Col 2 line 60 – Col 3 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the general electronic modules taught by Soyano with the half-bridge circuits taught by Temic. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 30, insofar as can be understood by the examiner in light of the claim objections or 35 USC 112 rejections above, Soyano teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24 but not does explicitly teach its incorporation into a motor vehicle.
Temic teaches an electronic assembly similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches its suitability for use in a motor vehicle (Temic Col 2 lines 23-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the electronic assembly taught by Soyano with the incorporation of that assembly into a motor vehicle as taught by Temic in order to use the underside of the carrier as a means to increase mechanical strength and improve EMC screening for use in motor vehicles (Temic Col 2 lines 23-29).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Soyano and Nakagawa as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Higuchi.
As to Claim 35, the combination of Soyano and Nakagawa teaches the method as claimed in claim 18, but fails to explicitly teach wherein an electrical power module is provided, the electrical circuit of which is surrounded by a potting material.
Higuchi teaches a method similar to that taught by the combination of Soyano and Nakagawa, and explicitly teaches the electrical circuit (Higuchi Fig 1B, chip 10) being surrounded by a potting material (10 surrounded by 130, which is a sealing resin ¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method having an electronic module taught by the combination of Soyano and Nakagawa with the surrounding of the module with a potting material taught by Higuchi in order to protect the module from ambient environment, thereby increasing the working life of the module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Eastern.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/CDM/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899