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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Applicant has amended the title in a manner which more closely relates to the inventive concept but the current title can read on other references drawn to the same subject matter e.g., the Tamura reference. A further amendment to the title is required, one that would distinguish it from the Tamura reference; perhaps, a title further directed to the angle of the slits or the shape of the slits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that because the slit of Tamura is originally formed by cutting and bending a single plate fin, it does not meet the limitations of claim 1 i.e., the process of Tamura defines a shape that is different than that recited in the claims. While the Examiner agrees that there are differences between the Tamura reference and the device of the as-filed disclosure, these limitations cannot be read into the claims. The Examiner sees no issue with the elements mapped from Tamura onto the claims because the claim language, as currently presented, is broad enough to allow for this interpretation.
Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that the measurements taken from Tamura are of little value in light of a reading of M.P.E.P. § 2125. While the Examiner agrees that Tamura would not be able to read on limitations which present narrower recitations of measurements, that is not the case for claim 1. In specific, there is enough disclosure in the Tamura reference to show that the L1 is smaller than L2, which is all that is required by claim 1. It is noted that any additional limitation to narrow the relationship between L1 and L2 e.g., a recitation stating that L1 is 1/3 of L2 etc., would overcome the current rejection in light of M.P.E.P. § 2125.
To restate, the Examiner agrees that Tamura does not read on parts of the device of the as-filed specification but these parts are not, at present, in the claims (i.e., added to the claims by amendment) and these limitations cannot be read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Pat. Pub. No. JP 2017108068 A, which is of record, to Tamura et al. (hereinafter “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura teaches a heat radiating member comprising:
a plate-shaped base portion (structure defined by top wall 2a bottom wall 2b and peripheral wall 2c, hereinafter “base portion”; fig. 1) [0028] that extends in a first direction (along the length of the structure, indicated by black arrows in figs. 1 & 3, hereinafter “first direction”) along a direction (first direction) in which a refrigerant flows (shown by black arrows in figs. 1 & 3) and in a second direction (vertical direction in fig. 3, hereinafter “second direction”) orthogonal to the first direction (first direction) and has a thickness (thickness of structure in fig. 2) in a third direction (direction perpendicular to a plane created by the first direction and the second direction, hereinafter “third direction”) orthogonal to the first direction (first direction) and the second direction (second direction); and
a plurality of fins (plate fins 11; fig. 3) [0034] protruding from the base portion (base portion) toward one side (top side) in the third direction (third direction, see fig. 2) and arranged in the second direction (second direction), wherein assuming that a downstream side where the refrigerant flows is one side in the first direction (first direction), the fin (11) includes a flat plate-shaped sidewall (side walls of fins 11 facing second direction) that extends in the first direction (first direction) and the third direction (third direction) and has a thickness in the second direction (second direction), the sidewall is provided with a slit (coolant guide portions 15; figs. 2 & 3) [0034] penetrating in the second direction (second direction) and a bent portion (angled portions of slits 15) disposed on at least one of the one side in the first direction (first direction) and the other side () in the first direction (first direction) of the slit (15) and bent in the second direction (slight bend in the fins 11 at the slit 15 location; fig. 3), and
a length (L1 as annotated below) of the bent portion (angled of 15) is shorter than a first-direction length (L2 as annotated below) between a first-direction (first direction) end of the slit (15) facing the bent portion (angled of 15) and a bending start position of the bent portion (angled of 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Enlarged View of Fig. 2 from Tamura
Regarding claim 2, Tamura teaches the heat radiating member according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the bent portions (15) arranged side by side in the second direction (second direction) at a same first-direction position (first position) are bent to a same side (bent in the same direction) in the second direction (second direction).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura teaches the heat radiating member according to claim 1, wherein third-direction (third direction) one end is located closer to the one side (top side) in the first direction (first direction) than the third-direction (third direction) other end at a first-direction (first direction) end of the bent portion (angled of 15) as viewed in the second direction (view of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura teaches the heat radiating member according to claim 3, wherein a first-direction (first direction) end of the bent portion as viewed in the second direction (view of fig. 2) is inclined at 45° with respect to the third direction (third direction). The view of fig. 2 sufficiently shows an angle of 45° in spite of Tamura being silent on the inclination angle in the specification.
Regarding claim 8, Tamura teaches a semiconductor module comprising: the heat radiating member according to claim 1; and a semiconductor device (mounting portion P wherein is mounted a semiconductor element; fig. 1) [0001], [0003], & [0015] disposed on the other side of the base portion (base portion) in the third direction (third direction).
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.
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.
Claims 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura.
Regarding claim 4, Tamura does not explicitly teach the heat radiating member according to claim 3, wherein a first-direction (first direction) end of the bent portion (bent of 15) as viewed in the second direction (second direction) is inclined at 15° with respect to the third direction (third direction).
Tamura, however, teaches that the slits are inclined to direct coolant to specific areas of the heat dissipating device [0036]. Such a teaching establishes the prior art conditions for the slits 15.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the incline angle of the slits to reach the limitations of claim 14 to better direct the flow of coolant to desired areas as taught by Tamura [0036]. Reaching the specific limitation of 15 degrees would have been a matter of routine experimentation. M.P.E.P. 2144.05 II (A).
Regarding claim 7, Tamura does not teach the heat radiating member according to claim 3, wherein a plurality of the bent portions (bent of 15) are disposed in a first direction (first direction), and an inclination angle of a first-direction (first direction) end of the bent portion with respect to a third direction (third direction) as viewed in the second direction (view of fig. 2) changes in the first direction (first direction).
Tamura, however, teaches that the inclined slits promote heat transfer through the manipulation of coolant flow path [0015] & [0036]. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been able to reach a heat radiating member according to claim 7, having the prior art conditions established by Tamura, as a matter of routine experimentation. M.P.E.P. 2144.05 II (A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 20180080717 A1 to Kawabata et al. (hereinafter “Kawabata”).
Regarding claim 5, Tamura does not teach the heat radiating member according to claim 3, wherein a first-direction (first direction) end of the bent portion (bent of 15) as viewed in the second direction (second direction) is inclined at 30° with respect to the third direction (third direction). Tamura teaches that the slits 15 are inclined but does not specify to what degree.
Kawabata, however, teaches heat radiating fins (42; fig. 5) [0068] which are inclined at 30° with respect to the flow of coolant and the third direction (stacking direction in fig. 5),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat radiating member of Tamura to comprise fins inclined at 30° with respect to the flow of coolant to improve flow as taught by Kawabata [0068].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER whose telephone number is (703)756-5415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Drew Richards can be reached on (571) 272-1736. 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.
/ETHAN EDWARD CUTLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892