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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In lines 1-2 of the claim, it is stated that “the two chips of each of the plurality of power modules are mounted back-to-back.” However, this subject matter is already claimed in lines 2-3 of claim 21. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiuchi et al. (JP 2011109740 A), hereafter referred to as Horiuchi.
With regards to claim 21, Horiuchi discloses the claimed electrified vehicle inverter (Contents of Fig. 5), comprising: a plurality of power modules (1a-c) (Fig. 5), each of the plurality of power modules including two chips (bottom and top IGBTs of each module 1a-c) (Fig. 5) mounted back-to-back (See Fig. 5; The arrangement of the two chips per column could be considered back-to-back with respect to the sides of the IGBT chips.), each chip having at least one switch (IGBTs are transistors, i.e., switches) operable to convert DC power from a traction battery (200) (Fig. 1) to AC power supplied to an electric machine (300) (Fig. 1; See also lines 33-36 of page 3, which describe conversion of DC battery power to AC motor power.), the inverter including a coolant inlet (11) (Fig. 5) configured to supply coolant in parallel (i.e., vertically with respect to Fig. 5) to a first edge (Upstream edge) (See Fig. 5) of all of the chips (IGBTs 125) (Fig. 5, numbered in fig. 4) of the plurality of power modules (Power modules 1a-c) (Fig. 5), and a coolant outlet (12) (Fig. 5) configured to exhaust coolant after flowing from the first edge to a second edge (Downstream edge) (See Fig. 5) opposite the first edge of each chip (Downstream edges being opposite to upstream edges along the flow direction) (See Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 28, Horiuchi discloses all as applied to claim 21, and additionally discloses:
wherein the two chips (bottom and top IGBTs of each module 1a-c) of each of the plurality of power modules (1a-c) (Fig. 5) are mounted back-to-back (See Fig. 5; The arrangement of the two chips per column could be considered back-to-back with respect to the sides of the IGBT chips.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the arguments beginning on page 11, Applicant begins by citing the specification, noting the specifics of the provided cooling channels, and directing attention to Figure 8. Applicant notes that the coolant is provided to all chips in parallel from the inlet, passing from one edge to an opposite edge, and exiting to the outlet. Applicant highlights that this configuration avoids warmed coolant from contacting downstream power modules. While these benefits are appreciated, it is noted that the claims are broader than argued. Specifically, the Office notes that the various channels of Horiuchi could be considered to be in parallel to one another, as they are all vertical with respect to the page, and are parallel with gaps between each channel.
Applicant continues on page 12, and notes that the arrangement in Fig. 5 of Horiuchi does not appear to address the problem identified by Applicant. The Office respectfully notes that the claims are broader than argued, with Horiuchi being able to be mapped to the claim language, regardless of the problem being solved. Applicant claims that only two of the chips receive parallel flow, with the remainer receiving sequential flow. While the upshot of Applicant’s argument is understood, the Office respectfully disagrees with the stance taken. Particularly, each channel could be considered to be in parallel to the adjacent channels, with ‘in parallel’ being viewed as a generally broad term in the context of the claims and the instant Application. Notably, each channel of Horiuchi is vertical with respect to the page, which would be considered to be ‘in parallel’ without additional clarifying language directed to the fluid flow.
Regarding the new claims, the Office notes that claims 22-27 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter, but the Office respectfully disagrees regarding the patentability of claims 21 and 28, as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claim 22, at least in part, because claims 1, 16, and 22 recite the limitations:
(Claim 1): “… a base plate defining at least a first portion of the first and second channels and configured to secure the at least one power module thereto at least one cover plate secured to the base plate, the at least one cover plate configured to fluidly seal the first and second channels a channel plate defining a second portion of the first and second channels, the channel plate secured to the base plate, the at least one power module being disposed between the channel plate and the base plate: and a second cover plate secured to the channel plate and fluidly sealing the second portion of the first and second channels.”
(Claim 16): “ … a base plate having a first channel fluidly coupled to a coolant inlet, a second channel fluidly coupled to a coolant outlet … a base cover plate extending over the first, second, and third channels and secured to the base plate; a channel plate having a fourth channel fluidly coupled to the coolant inlet and a fifth channel fluidly coupled to the coolant outlet, the fourth channel configured to supply coolant in parallel to a first edge of the second chip of each of the plurality of power modules, the fifth channel configured to collect coolant from a second edge of the second chip of each of the plurality of power modules; and a channel cover plate extending over the fourth and fifth channels.”
(Claim 22): “… wherein the inverter comprises: a base plate configured to secure each of the plurality of power modules thereto, the base plate having a first channel configured to supply coolant from the coolant inlet in parallel to the first edge of each chip and a second channel configured to direct coolant from the second edge of each chip to the coolant outlet.”
Horiuchi (JP 2011109740 A) is believed to be the closest prior art reference, and is discussed above, and in the previous action.
However, Horiuchi fails to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claim 22.
The remaining prior art references teach various cooling devices for inverters, particularly those that are part of vehicles, have multiple channels, that are similar in form to the instant application. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is believed that the instant Application contains allowable subject matter.
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 KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdrawal of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. The form may be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system using the document description Internet Communications Authorized or Internet Communications Authorization Withdrawn to facilitate processing. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion.
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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835