Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/247,490

HEATING ELEMENT COOLING STRUCTURE AND POWER CONVERSION DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 31, 2023
Examiner
WEGNER, AARON MICHAEL
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hitachi Astemo, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
13 granted / 20 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -4% lift
Without
With
+-4.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
85
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 20 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-170823, filed on October 8, 2020. Response to Amendment This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed December 2, 2025. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. The Examiner notes that claims 1-4 and 6-11 are examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-2, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (US 2007/0085197 A1). With respect to claim 1, Arai teaches in Fig. 11: A heating element cooling structure comprising; a heating element (combination of semiconductor element 11 and radiator plate 150); a water path member (cooler 30 with coolant flow passages 31) through which a refrigerant flows (Para. 134 “31 that permit the flow of coolant medium”); and a heat conductive layer (insulation member 2F, para. 51, “insulation member 2F is formed in a configuration to surround an outer periphery of the cooler 30”, para. 206, insulation film may be an aluminum nitride film) covering an outer surface of the water path member (cooler 30), the heat conductive layer (2F, made of aluminum nitride) is formed of a material having a thermal conductivity higher than a thermal conductivity of the water path member (30, made of aluminum) (the thermal conductivity of aluminum nitride is 321 W/(m K) the thermal conductivity of aluminum is 237 W/(m K)), wherein the heat conductive layer includes a first region formed on the outer surface, of the water path member, close to the heating element (see annotated Fig. 11 below), and a second region formed on the outer surface, of the water path member, away from the heating element (see annotated Fig. 11 below), the first region and the second region of the heat conductive layer are continuously formed (region is continuous, with side portions connecting the top and bottom), and the water path (30) member having the outer surface covered with a heat conductive layer (2F) abuts one surface of the heating element (abuts top surface of 150 which is included in the heating element with 11) PNG media_image1.png 349 495 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2, Arai further teaches: wherein a linear expansion coefficient of the heat conductive layer (2F, aluminum nitride, linear expansion coefficient = 5.3) is smaller than a linear expansion coefficient of the water path member (30, aluminum, linear expansion coefficient = 23). With respect to claim 5, Arai further teaches: wherein the water path member having the outer surface covered with a heat conductive layer (30 covered with 2F) is provided at one surface of the heating element (top surface of 150). With respect to claim 6, Arai further teaches: wherein in a cross section that passes through the heating element and is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the water path member, (cross section shown in Fig. 11), the heat conductive layer covers an entire circumference of an outer surface of the water path member (2F completely surrounds 30) With respect to claim 9, Arai further teaches: A power conversion device comprising the heating element cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the heating element (11 and 150) is a semiconductor module (semiconductor element 11 plus radiator plate 150) including a semiconductor element (11) that performs a power conversion (para. 97, semiconductor module may incorporate a power integrated circuit), and wherein a heat dissipation surface of the semiconductor module (top surface of 11) is in thermal contact with the heat conductive layer (2F) via a heat conduction member (radiator plate 150). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2007/0085197 A1) in view of Miyazaki (JP 2006339271 A). With respect to claim 3, Arai teaches all limitations of claim 2 upon which claim 3 depends. Arai further teaches: the water path member (30, cooler made of aluminum) is made of a material containing aluminum. Arai fails to teach: wherein the heat conductive layer is made of a material containing copper Miyazaki teaches in Fig. 2: wherein the heat conductive layer (layer comprising the dimension adjusting member 4 and insulator 5 on either side of cooling tube 3) is made of a material containing copper as a main component (dimension adjustment member 4 consists of copper plates) Arai discloses the claimed invention except for the material of the heat conductive layer. Miyazaki teaches that it is known to include copper plates between the insulation material and the cooling tube to form the heat conductive layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a copper plate in the heat conductive layer as taught by Miyazaki, since states at para 3 that such a modification would improve cooling efficiency and provide shielding of electromagnetic waves. See MPEP 2144. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2007/0085197 A1). With respect to claim 4, the seventh embodiment of Fig. 11 of Arai teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. Fig. 11 of Arai fails to teach: wherein the water path member having the outer surface covered with a heat conductive layer is provided at a top and bottom surface of the heating element. The ninth embodiment of Fig. 14 of Arai teaches: wherein the water path member (coolers 30H) is provided at a top and bottom surface of the heating element (11). Modifying the seventh embodiment of Arai with the ninth embodiment of Arai so that the coolers are on both sides of the heating element teaches: wherein the water path member (30 of Fig. 11) having the outer surface covered with a heat conductive layer (2F of Fig. 11) is provided at both surfaces of the heating element (top and bottom surface, as shown in Fig. 14). Fig. 11 of Arai discloses the claimed invention except for the water path member on both sides of the heating element. Fig. 14 of Arai teaches that it is known to put water path members on both sides of the heating element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Arai with the teaching of Fig. 14 of Arai, since Arai states in para. 172 that such a modification would result in increased cooling efficiency of the semiconductor insulation structure. See MPEP 2144. With respect to claim 8, the seventh embodiment of Fig. 11 of Arai teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. Fig. 11 of Arai is silent to: wherein the heat conductive layer is not formed at a longitudinal end of the water path member. The first embodiment of Fig. 1 of Arai teaches: wherein the heat conductive layer (insulation member 2) is not formed at a longitudinal end (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the water path member (cooler 3). Fig. 11 of Arai discloses the claimed invention except for the heat conductive layer not formed at the longitudinal end of the water path. Fig. 1 of Arai teaches that it is known to not form the heat conductive layer at the longitudinal end of the water path. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 11 of Aria as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Arai since Aria states at column para. 116 that such a modification would help prevent possible damage to the insulation member. See MPEP 2144. PNG media_image2.png 427 507 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2007/0085197 A1) in view of Yamauchi (US 2019/0371705 A1). With respect to claim 7, Arai fails to teach: wherein in a cross section that passes through the heating element and is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the water path member, part of the second region of the heat conductive layer has an open region in which the heat conductive layer is not formed. Yamauchi teaches in Fig. 16: wherein in a cross section that passes through the heating element and is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the water path member (cross section shown in Fig 16), part of the second region (buffer layer 62) of the heat conductive layer (62 plus conductive pattern 46) has an open region (second opening 64) in which the heat conductive layer is not formed. Arai discloses the claimed invention except for the opening in the heat conductive layer. Yamauchi teaches that it is known to make a heat conductive layer with an opening away from the semiconductor device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Arai to include an opening in the top of the heat conductive layer as taught by Yamauchi, since Yamauchi states at para. 98 that such a modification would allow the exposed surface of the cooling device to be bonded to other circuit components and improve the cooling performance of the system. See MPEP 2144. Claims 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2007/0085197 A1) as applied to claim 9 above in view of Emori (JP 2016015466 A). With respect to claim 10, Arai teaches all limitations of claim 9 upon which claim 10 depends. Arai fails to teach: the semiconductor module includes a plurality of semiconductor modules, and wherein the heat conductive layer includes a region overlapping the heat dissipation surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor modules, and extends along a longitudinal direction of the water path member. Emori teaches in Figs. 1 and 8: the semiconductor module (semiconductor modules 8) includes a plurality of semiconductor modules (8-1 and 8-2), and wherein the heat conductive layer (insulating substrate 11 which includes bonding materials 3B-1 and 3B-2, metal members 4-1 and 4-2, and ceramic plate 5) includes a region overlapping the heat dissipation surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor modules (region that includes 11-1 and 11-2 overlaps 8-1 and 8-2), and extends along a longitudinal direction of the water path member (extends along Y1). Aria discloses the claimed invention except for use of multiple modules that overlap the heat dissipation surface. Emori discloses that it is known in the art to provide multiple semiconductor modules in the semiconductor modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool multiple semiconductor modules with the same cooler. See MPEP 2144. With respect to claim 11, Arai teaches all limitations of claim 9 upon which claim 11 depends. Arai fails to teach: the semiconductor module includes a plurality of semiconductor modules, and wherein the heat conductive layer is formed in a region overlapping the heat dissipation surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor modules, and is not formed in a region between the plurality of semiconductor modules. Emori teaches in Figs. 1 and 8: the semiconductor module (semiconductor modules 8) includes a plurality of semiconductor modules (8-1 and 8-2), and wherein the heat conductive layer (insulating substrate 11 which includes bonding materials 3B-1 and 3B-2, metal members 4-1 and 4-2, and ceramic plate 5) is formed in a region overlapping the heat dissipation surface of each of the plurality of semiconductor modules (11-1 overlaps 9-1, 11-2 overlaps 8-2), and is not formed in a region between the plurality of semiconductor modules (gap between 11-1 and 11-2 between 8-1 and 8-2). Aria discloses the claimed invention except for use of multiple modules that overlap the heat dissipation surface with a region between the modules where the heat dissipation is not formed. Emori discloses that it is known in the art to provide multiple semiconductor modules in the semiconductor modules and a gap in the heat dissipation surface between the modules. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool multiple semiconductor modules with the same cooler while also electrically insulating the modules from each other. See MPEP 2144. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed December 2, 2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 have been withdrawn in view of amendments. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes that the same prior art was applied to the amended claims but with a different mapping of elements in view of the amendment to claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner has changed the mapping of the heating element to include both the semiconductor element 11 and radiator plate 150 of Arai. Applicant argues that the water path member allegedly abuts the radiator plate, not semiconductor element 11 that was previously mapped as the heating element. The Examiner considers the new mapping proper as the radiator plate 150 is analogous to the cooling wheel 342 of the instant application which is included in the semiconductor module that the Applicant refers to as a heating element (para. 13 of the instant application “the semiconductor module 300 generates heat and is a heating element.”) 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 AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 PM. 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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. /A.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 31, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598793
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581729
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING FIN FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR AND PLANAR FIN FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12557277
Integrated Circuitry, Memory Circuitry Comprising Strings Of Memory Cells, And Method Of Forming Integrated Circuitry
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12520516
Semiconductor Device with a Changeable Polarization Direction
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12513971
METHOD FOR MAKING ELEVATED SOURCE-DRAIN STRUCTURE OF PMOS IN FDSOI PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (-4.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 20 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month