DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/161239, attorney docket 2663.1021, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The applicant or assignee is FUJI ELECTRIC CO., LTD.., and claims foreign priority to 2022-033673, filed 03/04/2022. Claims 1-5 and 14-18 are pending and are considered below. Examiner John Bodnar has inherited the instant application. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the direction of coolant flow in the longitudinal direction, which is the same as a direction of extension of the semiconductor modules, and argues that the art or record Yoshihiko does not teach the limitation because the flow path of Yoshihiko does not extend along that direction. Examiner disagrees. Cooling tubes 22 extend and flow across the figure between the modules, so Yoshihiko appears to read on the first part of the amended claim 1. However, Yoshihiko does not teach the amended limitation, “a first flow path that extends in the longitudinal direction of the cooler, and a second flow path that extends in the longitudinal direction of the cooler, the first flow path positioned closer to the plurality of semiconductor modules than the second flow path” because all the flow paths are equidistant from the modules, and all flow the same direction. Therefore, the previous rejection based on Yoshihiro is withdrawn.
New claim 14 is distinguished from Yoshihiko because Yoshihiko does not teach “the plurality of third flow paths positioned closer to the plurality of semiconductor modules than the first flow path and the second flow path, the plurality of semiconductor modules are arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the cooler and are coupled to, or in contact with, the first cooling surface, and the passive element is coupled to, or in contact with, the second cooling surface”.
Yoshihiko teaches the third flow paths 22 between the modules but they extend longitudinally, not arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and the first and second flow paths extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. The passive element of Yoshihiko contacts a second surface of only one of the second surfaces of the third flow paths.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Sevakivi et al. (U.S. 2017/0118868).
As for claim 1,
Sevakivi teaches in figures 1 and 2, a semiconductor device comprising:
a cooler (1) that is elongated in a longitudinal direction of the cooler (into the page toward the left) and through which a refrigerant is flowable ([0012]);
a plurality of semiconductor modules (4), each semiconductor module of the plurality of semiconductor modules including one or more semiconductor elements ([0034]);
and a passive element (5) configured to drive the plurality of semiconductor modules ([0005]),
wherein the cooler includes:
a first cooling surface (6) that extends in the longitudinal direction of the cooler;
a second cooling surface (7) that opposes the first cooling surface,
a first flow path (22) that extends in the longitudinal direction of the cooler, and a second flow path (21) that extends in the longitudinal direction of the cooler, the first flow path positioned closer to the plurality of semiconductor modules than the second flow path,
the plurality of semiconductor modules is arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the cooler and is coupled to, or in contact with, the first cooling surface, the passive element is coupled to, or in contact with, the second cooling surface (shown in figure 1),
and the cooler is configured such that, with a flow of the refrigerant through the cooler, the refrigerant flows through the first flow path then flows through the second flow path. ([0026])
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevakivi in view of Tokuyama et al. (U.S. 2018/0013355).
As for claim 2,
Sevakivi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, but does not teach:
a housing containing the passive element, the cooler, and the plurality of semiconductor modules, wherein:
the housing includes a mounting surface on which the passive element is mounted, and a direction that the passive element, the cooler, and a semiconductor module of the plurality of semiconductor modules are stacked is parallel to the mounting surface.
However, Tokuyama teaches in figures 2A-2D, a housing (400) containing the passive element (500), the cooler (integrated into 400 [0043]), and the plurality of semiconductor modules (300), wherein:
the housing includes a mounting surface on which the passive element is mounted (sides of slots 405 and 406), and a direction that the passive element, the cooler, and a semiconductor module of the plurality of semiconductor modules are stacked is parallel to the mounting surface. (2D).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to add the housing of Tokuyama to the device of Sevakivi because the housing is needed contain and protect the elements from harsh environments and provide external mounting. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 3,
Sevakivi in view Tokuyama makes obvious the semiconductor device according to claim 2, and in the combination Tokuyama teaches
spaces (405 and 40d) provided between the plurality of semiconductor modules and the mounting surface, and between the cooler and the mounting surface, respectively,
and conductors (shown in figure 5b) are positioned in the spaces, respectively, and
conductors electrically connect the plurality of semiconductor modules and the passive element to each other. (connections shown in 5b).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use the sides of the openings to run the electrical connections because it protects the wiring from snags. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach a header with a cooling surface that faces the second element surface.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and includes that same novel limitation.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the prior art does not teach or make obvious the device of claim 14 that includes a plurality of third flow paths positioned closer to the plurality of semiconductor modules than the first flow path and the second flow path
Claims 15-18 depend from claim14 and include the same novel limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central 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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights