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
Amendments to Fig 3 have overcome the previous drawing objection.
New in this office action: the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: cooling fins 20, e.g., pg. 15.
Similarly, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 29, e.g., on Fig 2.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "another heat sink" recited in must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to because the quality of drawings do not clearly indicate which elements are labeled with which part number. For example, Figure 2 . 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.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to:
Claim 22 contains the typo “where-in” in line 3. Examiner suggests correction to instead say “wherein”.
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, 26, and 32-33 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.
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.
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 16 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 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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 23-26, 28-30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0140420 (Soyano et al) and further in view of US Patent 5,966,291 (Baumel 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) having a first side and a second side, wherein the electrical circuit is arranged on the 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).
Soyano does not explicitly teach wherein another heat sink is used, in the interior of which 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 such that the at least one cooling fin extends away from the electrical circuit.
Baumel teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches a heat sink (Baumel 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) such that the at least one cooling fin extends away from the electrical circuit (211 extend away from 11).
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 Baumel in order to further improve cooling of the module, thereby improving performance.
As to Claim 17, 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 Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. Soyano 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 23, 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 Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16.
Baumel further teaches the modules being arranged as half-bridges (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 and Baumel with the half-bridge circuits taught by Baumel. 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 24, 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) having a first side and a second side, wherein the electrical circuit is arranged on the 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”).
Soyano does not explicitly teach wherein another heat sink is used, in the interior of which 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 such that the at least one cooling fin extends away from the electrical circuit.
Baumel teaches a method similar to that of Soyano, and explicitly teaches a heat sink (Baumel 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) such that the at least one cooling fin extends away from the electrical circuit (211 extend away from 11).
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 Baumel in order to further improve cooling of the module, thereby improving performance.
As to Claim 25, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24. Soyano 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 25. Soyano 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24. Soyano 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 29, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24.
Baumel further teaches the modules being arranged as half-bridges (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 and Baumel with the half-bridge circuits taught by Baumel. 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the electronic assembly as claimed in claim 24.
Baumel further teaches the electronic assembly is suitable for use in a motor vehicle (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 and Baumel with the incorporation of that assembly into a motor vehicle as taught by Baumel 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 (Col 2 lines 23-29).
As to Claim 32, 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 Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 17. The combination fails to explicitly teach a third copper layer within the depression. However, it is obvious, in light of the combination the method taught by Soyano and Baumel could incorporate a further copper layer such that the third copper layer, being at least substantially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression, is provided since courts have held that mere duplication of parts is obvious less any new or unexpected results are produced (see MPEP §2144.04.VI.C). In this case, the further copper layer (30) can include a third copper layer attached thereon satisfying the limitations of claim 32.
Claims 18, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano and Baumel 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel 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 Baumel, 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 and Baumel 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches method as claimed in claim 17, but fails to explicitly teach 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 Baumel, 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 The combination of Soyano and Baumel 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, Baumel, and Nakagawa teaches the method as claimed in claim 18. The combination fails to explicitly teach a third copper layer within the depression. However, it is obvious, in light of the combination the method taught by Soyano, Baumel, and Nakagawa could incorporate a further copper layer such that the third copper layer, being at least substantially flush with the side of the heat sink and/or which completely fills the depression, is provided since courts have held that mere duplication of parts is obvious less any new or unexpected results are produced (see MPEP §2144.04.VI.C). In this case, the further copper layer (30) can include a third copper layer attached thereon satisfying the limitations of claim 33.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano and Baumel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20140305802 (Ding et al).
As to Claim 19, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. The combination fails to explicitly teach a third copper layer within the depression.
Ding discloses a method similar to that of Soyano and Baumel, and explicitly teaches formation of a double-copper layer in an opening through plasma sputtering of a copper seed layer followed by CVD deposition (Ding ¶0166-0167).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the method taught by Soyano and Baumel with the deposition of a double-copper layer taught by Ding in order to efficiently fill the opening utilizing a lower thermal budget than other methods (Ding ¶0167).
As to Claim 22, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. Soyano 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), and wherein multiple power modules are fastened on each one of the multiple copper layers (each 40 on corresponding 30). The combination fails to explicitly teach a third copper layer within the depressions.
Ding, for the same reasons as those outlined in the claim 16 rejection above, renders obvious the third copper layer within the depression, satisfying the limitations of claim 22.
Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soyano and Baumel 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein an electrical power module is provided, but fails to explicitly teach the electrical circuit of which is surrounded by a potting material.
Higuchi teaches a method similar to that of Soyano and Baumel, 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 and Baumel 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, the combination of Soyano and Baumel 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 Baumel, 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 and Baumel 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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Soyano, Baumel, and Nakagawa as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Higuchi.
As to Claim 35, the combination of Soyano, Baumel, 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, Baumel, 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, Baumel, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 and 24 under 35 USC §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC §103 as presented above.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art Baumel teaches away from the at least one cooling fin extending away from the electrical circuit is not considered persuasive. Baumel Fig 1 shows at least one cooling fin (211) extending away from the electrical circuit (11). It is unclear to examiner based on arguments how this structure differs from that claimed in the instant application.
Applicant’s argument that the devices taught by Soyano and Baumel are not obvious to combine is not considered persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner reminds applicant that all arguments made in the office action need to be addressed, as several of the rejections under 35 USC §112(b) were not addressed nor any amendments made to overcome them.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/Corbyn D Mellinger/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /EVAN G CLINTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights