DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 have been allowed over the prior art since they have been rewritten to include allowable subject matter as detailed in the nonfinal rejection dated 10/1/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rejections over Barkow et al., US 12,200,916
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being clearly anticipated by Barkow et al., US 12,200,916.
Regarding claim 1, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 below) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module comprising:
an enclosure 1/2/20;
an insulating liquid 100 filling the enclosure 1/2/20;
a substrate 3 disposed inside the enclosure 1/2/20, the substrate 3 having a plurality of cooling fins 4 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 100; and
a chip 40 disposed on the substrate 3 inside the enclosure 1/2/20 such that the insulating liquid 100 directly contacts the chip 40 and so as to exchange heat with the chip 40.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 4 are on a first side of the substrate 3, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
As to claim 5, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches the enclosure 1/2/20 comprises an inlet 35 and an outlet 36 connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid 100.
In re claim 7, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches the inlet 35 and the outlet 36 of the enclosure 1/2/20 are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid 100 flows.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkow et al., US 12,200,916, as applied to claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 2, though Barkow, which teaches it is a heat sink, fails to specifically teach the substrate 3 is a plate comprising a metal material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a metal plate in the invention of Barkow because a metal plate is a conventionally known and used heat sink. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 6, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches the inlet 35 and the outlet 36 are arranged on a straight line, and though Barkow fails to teach the substrate 4 is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet and the outlet, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the position of the substrate through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In claim 8, though Barkow fails to specifically teach a pump in the flow path to flow the insulating liquid in through the inlet and out through the outlet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a pump in the invention of Barkow because a pump is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, though Barkow fails to specifically teach a cooler inside or outside the enclosure and configured to cool the insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a cooler in the invention of Barkow because a cooler is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 10, Barkow (figure 1) teaches the substrate 3 is vertically disposed in the enclosure 1/2/20 (it is vertically located between the top 20 and bottom 1 of the enclosure 1/2/20), and though Barkow fails to teach the cooler is located on an outer top surface or an inner top surface of the enclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a cooler in one of these locations in the invention of Barkow because a cooler in one of these locations is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Rejections over Campbell et al., US 9,357,675
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., US 9,357,675, in view of Barkow et al., US 12,200,916.
As to claim 1, Campbell (figure 4) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module comprising:
an enclosure 401/407/431;
an insulating liquid 420 filling the enclosure 401/407/431;
a substrate 411 disposed inside the enclosure 401/407/431, the substrate 411 having a plurality of cooling fins 413 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 420; and
a chip 411 disposed on the substrate 411 inside the enclosure 401/407/431 such that the insulating liquid directly contacts the chip and so as to exchange heat with the chip.
Campbell teaches 411 can be electronic packages, and electronic packages are chips on a substrate, but Campbell fails to specifically teach the cooling fins are on the substrate.
Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches an electronic package comprising a chip 40 on substrate 3 with cooling fins 4 on the substrate 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the electronic package of Barkow as the electronic package in the invention of Campbell because Campbell’s electronic package is a conventionally known and used electronic package. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 2, though Barkow, which teaches it is a heat sink, fails to specifically teach the substrate 3 is a plate comprising a metal material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a metal plate in the invention of Barkow because a metal plate is a conventionally known and used heat sink. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 3, Campbell (figure 4) teaches a support body 412 inside the enclosure 401/407/431 and connected to the substrate 411 to fix the substrate 411 inside the enclosure 401/407/431.
Pertaining to claim 4, Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 4 are on a first side of the substrate 3, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
In claim 5, Campbell (figure 4) teaches the enclosure 401/407/431 comprises an inlet 432 and an outlet 433 connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid 420.
Regarding claim 7, Campbell (figure 4) teaches the inlet 432 and the outlet 433 of the enclosure 401/407/431 are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid 420 flows.
With respect to claim 8, Campbell (figure 2) teaches a pump 215 in the flow path to flow the insulating liquid 420 in through the inlet 432 and out through the outlet 433.
As to claim 9, Campbell (column 5, lines 37-41) teaches a cooler inside or outside the enclosure and configured to cool the insulating liquid. Wherein a heat exchanger is a known type of cooler.
In re claim 10, Campbell (figure 4) teaches the substrate 411 is vertically disposed in the enclosure 401/407/431, and the cooler (column 5, lines 37-41 states attached to the cooler is attached to the outlet which is on top of the enclosure) is located on an outer top surface or an inner top surface of the enclosure 401/407/431.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., US 9,357,675 (figure 4), in view of Barkow et al., US 12,200,916, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Campbell et al., US 9,357,675 (figure 5A).
Concerning claim 6, Campbell (figure 4) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet are arranged on a straight line, and the substrate is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet and the outlet.
Campbell (figure 5A) teaches the inlet 511 and the outlet 512 are arranged on a straight line, and the substrate 505 with cooling pins 504 is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet 511 and the outlet 512.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the configuration of Campbell (figure 5A) in the invention of Campbell (figure 4) because Campbell (figure 5A) teaches an alternative and equivalent configuration. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim(s) 11, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., US 9,357,675, in view of Barkow et al., US 12,200,916.
Pertaining to claim 11, Campbell (figure 4) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module, the power module comprising:
an enclosure 401/407/431;
an insulating liquid 420 filling the enclosure 401/407/431;
a plurality of substrates 411 disposed inside the enclosure 401/407/431, each substrate 411 having a plurality of cooling fins 413 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 420;
a connection body 412 electrically connecting the plurality of substrates 411 to each other; and
a plurality of chips 411 disposed on the plurality of substrates 411 such that the insulating liquid 420 directly contacts the plurality of chips 411 so as to exchange heat with the plurality of chips 411.
Campbell teaches 411 can be electronic packages, and electronic packages are chips on a substrate, but Campbell fails to specifically teach the cooling fins are on the substrate.
Barkow (see marked up figure 1 above) teaches an electronic package comprising a chip 40 on substrate 3 with cooling fins 4 on the substrate 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the electronic package of Barkow as the electronic package in the invention of Campbell because Campbell’s electronic package is a conventionally known and used electronic package. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 14, though Barkow, which teaches it is a heat sink, fails to specifically teach the substrate 3 is a plate comprising a metal material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a metal plate in the invention of Barkow because a metal plate is a conventionally known and used heat sink. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell (figure 4) teaches a support body 412 inside the enclosure 401/407/431 and connected to the plurality of substrates 411 to fix the plurality of substrates 411 inside the enclosure 401/407/431.
With respect to claim 16, Campbell (figure 4) teaches for each substrate 411 of the plurality of substrates 411, the plurality of cooling fins 413 are on a first side of the substrate 411, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
As to claim 17, Campbell (figure 4) teaches the enclosure 401/407/431 comprises an inlet 432 and an outlet 433 connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid 420.
In re claim 19, Campbell (figure 4) teaches the inlet 432 and the outlet 433 of the enclosure 401/407/431 are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid 420 flows, and Campbell (figure 2) teaches a pump 215 in the flow path to flow the insulating liquid 420 in through the inlet 432 and out through the outlet 433.
As to claim 20, Campbell (column 5, lines 37-41) teaches a cooler inside or outside the enclosure 401/407/431 and configured to cool the insulating liquid. Wherein a heat exchanger is a known type of cooler.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al., US 9,357,675 (figure 4), in view of Barkow et al., US 12,200,916, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Campbell et al., US 9,357,675 (figure 5A).
Concerning claim 6, Campbell (figure 4) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet are arranged on a straight line, and the substrate is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet and the outlet.
Campbell (figure 5A) teaches the inlet 511 and the outlet 512 are arranged on a straight line, and the substrate 505 with cooling pins 504 is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet 511 and the outlet 512.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the configuration of Campbell (figure 5A) in the invention of Campbell (figure 4) because Campbell (figure 5A) teaches an alternative and equivalent configuration. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 2/13/26