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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that (a) Yamauchi does not teach the limitations listed on Page 4 of the Remarks because claim 1 only requires one substrate whereas Yamauchi teaches three distinct elements (41, 42, and 43); (b) due to the missing one substrate, then Yamauchi does not teach an electronic die fixing layer affixed to the first face of the electrically conducting substrates; and (c) that a person of ordinary skill would not consider the layer of conductive and electrically insulating material to be part of a heat exchanger since that said layer and a heat exchanger are distinct and separate elements as required in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Yamauchi ¶ [0093] teaches forming the substrate 41&42&43 as conductive-pattern layers that support other elements together in a batch process. A person of ordinary skill would consider these conductive patterns as a substrate since 41&42&43, when viewed as a unit, horizontally span to support other elements (53, 54, 21, 20, 22, 51, and 52) on its top (substrate from the Latin: sub-, meaning “below” and sternere, meaning “to spread out or stretch out”). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to make these elements as a single unit (see MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B)) and/or find it obvious to make these elements continuous (see MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(E)). See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."), emphasis added. Also see In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.), emphasis added.
Second, since substrate 41&42&43 is taught by Yamauchi, then Yamauchi Fig. 2 also teaches the electronic die fixing layer (21) affixed to the first face (top surface of 41&42&43) of the electrically conducting substrate.
Third, Yamauchi teaches two separate and distinct structural elements that are not comprised of the same material. Yamauchi’s heat exchanger is a hollow space (13) formed around a layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material (i.e., the ceramic material of cooler 10 as disclosed in paragraphs [0036] and [0079]). Yamauchi ¶ [0035] teaches this hollow space is used to carry a coolant through which the heat exchange is facilitated. Hence, this hollow space is a heat exchanger. Furthermore, the limitation of “a first heat exchanger and a layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material arranged in contact with the second face of said electrically conducting substrate” have at least two meanings: (a) both the heat exchanger and the layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material are in contact with the second face of the substrate or (b) the layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material is in contact with the electrically conducting substrate. Clearly, Yamauchi teaches the second interpretation as the ceramic material of cooler 10 is in contact with the bottom surface of substrate 41&42&43. This interpretation also aligns with the disclosure of the instant application. See Figs. 1-3 of the instant application where the layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulative layer (122) is in contact with the bottom surface of the substrate (102), with the first heat exchanger (120) not in direct contact with the bottom surface of the substrate, emphasis added. Lastly, although the first interpretation is not supported in the applicant’s disclosure, even if the first interpretation is applied, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious that this is a matter of design choice and would not have changed the operation of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C): In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
In summary, the application is not in a condition for an allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2018/0301422 A1) in view of Park (US 2020/0266125 A1) as evidenced by Snyder (US 2021/0210361 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi teaches an electronic component (Figs. 1-24) comprising:
an electrically conducting substrate (41&42&43, see ¶ 0040) having a first face (top surface of 41&42&43) and a second face (bottom surface of 41&42&43) opposite to the first face,
a plurality of connection pins (Figs. 1-10: 52&53 or Figs. 11-24: 55&56) having a first end (Figs. 1-10: bottom end of 52&53; or alternatively, Figs. 11-24: left end of 55; right end of 56) connected to the electrically conducting substrate and a second end (Figs. 1-10: top end of 52&53; or alternatively, Figs. 11-24: right end of 55; left end of 56) opposed to the first end,
an electronic die fixing layer (21, see ¶ 0039, ¶ 0080) affixed to the first face of the electrically conducting substrate (21 is placed on the top surface of 41), and at least one electronic die (20) assembled on said electronic die fixing layer, and,
a first heat exchanger (Figs. 1-10: 13 or alternatively Figs. 11-24: 13a) and a layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material (Figs. 1-10: 10 or alternatively Figs. 11-24: 10a; ¶ 0036, ¶ 0079: cooler 10 is made of Al2O3, i.e., aluminum oxide and/or AlN, i.e., aluminum nitride; as evidenced by Synder ¶ 0020, aluminum oxide and aluminum nitride are a thermally conductive and electrically insulating materials) arranged in contact with the second face of said electrically conducting substrate, and
wherein said first heat exchanger is configured to receive a circulating cooling fluid (¶ 0035: 13 is configured to flow a coolant),
wherein said at least one electronic die, said electronic die fixing layer, said electrically conducting substrate and said layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material as well as the first end of said connection pins are enveloped in a volume of electrically insulating material (Figs. 1-2: 30; or Figs. 3-4: 30a; or Figs. 5-10: 30b; or Fig. 11 & 24: 30c; or Fig. 12-17: 30d; or Figs. 18-21: 30e; or Figs. 22-23: 30f; ¶ 0047: 30 is made of epoxy resin with silica fillers) at device operating temperature (Yamauchi in view of Park teaches use of insulating material at device operating temperature, i.e., at cryogenic temperatures).
Although Yamauchi’s Figures labelled substrate 41&42&43 as separate elements, a person of ordinary skill would consider these conductive patterns as a substrate since 41&42&43 horizontally span to support other elements (53, 54, 21, 20, 22, 51, and 52) on top (substrate from the Latin: sub-, meaning “below” and sternere, meaning “to spread out or stretch out”). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to make these elements as a single unit (see MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B)) and/or find it obvious to make these elements continuous (see MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(E)). In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."), emphasis added. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.), emphasis added.
Also, since substrate 41&42&43 is taught by Yamauchi, then Yamauchi also teaches the electronic die fixing layer (21) affixed to the first face (top surface of 41&42&43) of the electrically conducting substrate.
However, Yamauchi does not teach the electronic component wherein the circulating cooling fluid is cryogenic and wherein the volume of electrically insulating material is enveloping package components at cryogenic operating temperatures.
Park, in the same field of invention, teaches an electronic component (Figs. 2-9) wherein the circulating cooling fluid (¶ 0043: liquid nitrogen or liquid helium) is cryogenic (¶ 0043: at 77 Kelvin) and wherein the volume of electrically insulating material (220) is enveloping package components (210) at cryogenic operating temperatures (¶ 0042, ¶ 0047).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Park into the device of Yamauchi to use a cryogenic fluid as a circulating cooling fluid and to envelop package components of an electronic component with a volume of electrically insulating material at cryogenic operating temperatures. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamauchi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of cooling the electronic device at cryogenic temperatures to provide a stable operation of the semiconductor package (Park ¶ 0003), particularly to DRAM devices, as these rarely require refresh operation in cryogenic environments, thereby reducing its power consumption (Park ¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 2, the wherein all or part of said first heat exchanger is enveloped in said volume of electrically insulating material at cryogenic temperature (Yamauchi Figs. 2-24 show 30/30a/30b/30c/30d/30e/30f enveloping 10/10a).
Regarding claim 4, the according to claim 1, wherein the layer of thermally conductive and electrically insulating material is arranged between the electrically conducting substrate and the first heat exchanger (using BRI, Yamauchi Figs. 2-24 shows the upper portions of 10/10a is in between 13/13a and 41).
Regarding claim 7, the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein said electrically insulating material at cryogenic temperature is a resin (Yamauchi ¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 8, the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein said cryogenic fluid is selected from a group consisting of: liquid hydrogen, gaseous hydrogen, liquid nitrogen, gaseous nitrogen, liquid neon, gaseous neon, gaseous helium, liquid helium (Park ¶ 0043: liquid helium or preferably, liquid nitrogen).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2018/0301422 A1) in view of Park (US 2020/0266125 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Mitic (US 2021/0153394 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamauchi in view of Park teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, and further teaches the electrically conducting substrate to be a circuit pattern (Yamauchi ¶ 0040: 41: is a conductive pattern layer forming a surface interconnecting circuit) but does not teach: wherein said first heat exchanger is formed inside the electrically conducting substrate.
Mitic, in the same field of invention, teaches an electronic component (Figs. 2-8) comprising an electric conducting substrate (2) having a circuit pattern (11, see ¶ 0057), wherein a first heat exchanger (3) is formed inside the electrically conducting substrate (Figs. 2-8 and ¶ 0052 shows 3 inside 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Mitic into the device of Yamauchi in view of Park to form a first heat exchanger inside an electrically conducting substrate in an electronic component at least comprising of the electrically conducting substrate having a first face and an opposite second face; an electronic die fixing layer attached to the first face of the substate, at least one die on the electronic die fixing layer, and the first heat exchanger arranged in contact with the second face of the substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamauchi in view of Park in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the heat dissipation of the electronic component by placing the first heat exchanger directly beneath the electronic die and by distributing the first heat exchanger over a larger area of the electrically conducting substrate (Mitic ¶ 0010, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0051) and for the further purpose of extending the service life of the electronic component (Mitic ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 10, Yamauchi in view of Park teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, which is a power converter (Yamauchi ¶ 0003) with liquid cooling (¶ 0035), but does not teach an aircraft comprising the electronic component.
Mitic, in the same field of invention, teaches an aircraft (15, see Fig. 15) comprising an electronic component (14, see Figs. 9&10; ¶ 0059-0060: 14 is a power converter) with liquid cooling (Fig. 12, ¶ 0048).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Mitic into the device of Yamauchi in view of Park to provide an aircraft comprising the electronic component of claim 1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamauchi in view of Park in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using the electronic component of claim 1 as a converter that outputs electrical power to an electric motor which then causes a propeller of an aircraft to rotate (Mitic ¶ 0060, ¶ 0002).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2018/0301422 A1) in view of Park (US 2020/0266125 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Usui (US 2016/0307822 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamauchi in view of Park teaches the according to claim 1, and further teaches a second heat exchanger (13b, see Yamauchi Figs. 11-24) configured to receive a circulating cryogenic fluid (Park: ¶ 0043). However Yamauchi in view of Park does not teach the device wherein the first end of at least one connection pin passes through a second heat exchanger configured to receive a circulating cryogenic fluid.
Usui, in the same field of invention, teaches an electronic component (Figs. 13a-13b) wherein the first end (lower end of 5a or 5b encapsulated by resin 6, see ¶ 0060) of at least one connection pin (5a or 5b) passes through (dictionary meaning of through: “used as a function word to indicate movement into at one side or point and out at another and especially the opposite side of”; using BRI, 5a or 5b overlaps 2 from the bottom end of 2 to the top end of 2 along the vertical axis; hence 5a/5b passes through 2; also see ¶ 0097) a second heat exchanger (2) configured to receive a circulating cryogenic fluid (¶ 0069 ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Usui into the device of Yamauchi in view of Park to pass a first end of at least one connection pin through a second heat exchanger configured to receive a circulating cryogen fluid in an electronic component at least comprising of an electrically conducting substrate having a first face and an opposite second face; a plurality of connection pins having a first end connected to the substrate; at least one electronic die fixing layer attached to the first face of the substrate; at least one electronic die assemble on the electronic die fixing layer; and a first heat exchanger in contact with the second face of the substrate. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamauchi in view of Park in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of designing a power conversion inverter (¶ 0002) that requires a passive component (¶ 0004: capacitor) and for the further purpose of reducing the heat generated that would severely impact the performance of the capacitor (¶ 0004, ¶ 0008) by designing a heat exchanger in between the passive component and the electronic die (¶ 0005). Routing the connection pins from the capacitor to external connections would then require passing the capacitor terminal pins through the heat exchanger, resulting with the least amount of stray inductance in these connection pins (¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 6, the electronic component according to claim 5, wherein said first heat exchanger and said second heat exchanger form a same heat exchanger (Yamauchi Fig. 16 and ¶ 0097).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2018/0301422 A1) in view of Park (US 2020/0266125 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Terwilliger (US 2023/0257131 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi in view of Park teaches the electronic component of claim 1 to be a power semiconductor module, specifically an inverter (Yamauchi ¶ 0003). However, Yamauchi in view of Park does not teach a system comprising: two superconducting elements and the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the electronic component connects the two superconducting elements.
Terwilliger, in the same field of invention, teaches a system (Fig. 1: 10) comprising:
two superconducting elements (24 & 28, see ¶ 0029 ) and
the electronic component (32: ¶ 0034: 32 is an inverter) according to claim 1, wherein the electronic component connects (BRI: not necessarily directly connected) the two superconducting elements (Fig. 1 shows 32 directly connected to 24 and 32 indirectly connected to 28 via 30).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Terwilliger into the device of Yamauchi in view of Park to connect the electronic component of claim 1 to two superconducting elements in a system at least comprising of the two superconducting elements and the electronic component of claim 1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamauchi in view of Park in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of designing an electric powertrain system of an aircraft (Terwilliger ¶ 0002) wherein the cryogenically cooled power semiconductor module of Yamauchi in view of Park is used to provide electric power to one or more electrical loads of the aircraft (Terwilliger: abstract, ¶ 0028-0029), with the electrical loads being superconducting elements operating at temperatures less than 70 Kelvin (Terwilliger ¶0002) and for the further purpose of using superconducting elements to lower distribution voltages and reduce the transmission energy loss by an order of magnitude (Terwilliger ¶ 0002), at a rating of 5 to 10 megawatts (¶ 0029).
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 DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899