DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/14/26 has been entered.
Rejection over Porter et al., US 4,805,420
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Porter et al., US 4,805,420.
Regarding claim 1, Porter (figure 2) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module comprising:
an enclosure 10;
an insulating liquid 42 filling the enclosure 10;
a substrate 18 disposed inside the enclosure 10, having a plurality of cooling fins 21 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 42, and including an electrical circuit (column 3, lines 1-10) to be electrically connected; and
a chip 22 disposed (through 20) on the substrate 18 inside the enclosure 10 such that the insulating liquid 42 directly contacts the chip 22 and so as to exchange heat with the chip 22, the chip 22 being an electrically connectable element.
Porter may state the use of the pins for electrical connection (column 3, lines 6-10), but there exposure to the insulating liquid inherently mean they would also act as cooling fins.
With respect to claim 3, Porter (figure 2) teaches a support body 19 inside the )enclosure 10 and connected to the substrate 18 to fix the substrate 18 inside the enclosure 10.
As to claim 4, Porter (figure 2) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 21 are on a first side of the substrate 18, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
In re claim 5, Porter (figure 3) teaches the enclosure 10 comprises an inlet 50 and an outlet 56 connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid 42.
Concerning claim 7, Porter (figure 3) teaches the inlet 50 and the outlet 56 of the enclosure 10 are connected to a flow path 62 through which the insulating liquid 42 flows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al., US 4,805,420, as applied to claim 1 above.
Pertaining to claim 2, though Porter, which teaches the presence of electrical conductors (column 3, lines 1-6), fails to teach the substrate 18 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 metal as the electrical conductors in the invention of Porter because metal is the conventionally known used material for electrical conductors. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 6, though Porter 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a straight line inlet/outlet in the invention of Porter because the it is a known equivalent arrangement to the Porter’s. 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).
Regarding claim 8, though Porter fails to 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 Porter because it is conventionally known and used to move the insulating liquid through the enclosure. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 9, though Porter fails to 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 Porter because it is conventionally known and used to recycle the outlet insulating liquid. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 10, though Porter fails to teach the substrate is vertically disposed in the enclosure, and 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 this configuration in the invention of Porter because it is a conventionally known and used 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).
Rejection over Rifkin et al., US 3,909,678
Claim(s) 1-1, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rifkin et al., US 3,909,678, in view of Amo et al., US 2017/0365536.
In re claim 1, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module comprising:
an enclosure 11;
an insulating liquid (column 3, lines 43-55) filling the enclosure 11;
a substrate 2 disposed inside the enclosure 11, and including an electrical circuit to be electrically connected (3 to 4 to 20 to 15); and
a chip 1 disposed on the substrate 2 inside the enclosure 11 such that the insulating liquid (column 3, lines 43-55) directly contacts the chip 1 and so as to exchange heat with the chip 1, the chip 1 being an electrically connectable element (column 2, line 61-column 3, line 5).
Rifkin fails to teach the substrate having a plurality of cooling fins in thermal contact with the insulating liquid.
Amo (figure 3c) teaches a substrate 389 having a plurality of cooling fins 371 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 121.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cooling fins of Amo in the invention of Rifkin because Amo teaches it exchanges heat generated by the semiconductor module with the refrigerant (paragraph 0059). A skilled artisan knows that the increased surface area provided by the cooling fins increases rate of heat exchange. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 2, wherein the substrate 2 is a plate comprising a metal material (column 3, lines 6-12).
Pertaining to claim 3, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches a support body 4/2c inside the enclosure 11 and connected to the substrate 2 to fix the substrate 2 inside the enclosure 11.
In claim 4, Amo (figure 3c) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 371 are on a first side of the substrate 389, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, though Rifkin (figure 1), which only teaches an inlet 16, fails to teach the enclosure 11 comprises an inlet and an outlet connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an inlet and outlet in the invention of Rifkin because the continuous flow of the insulating liquid improves the cooling effect and doesn’t require the refilling step which improves efficiency and productivity. 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).
With respect to claim 6, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet are arranged on a straight line, and the plurality of substrates is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet and the outlet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Rifkin because it 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 7, though Rifkin fails to teach the inlet and the outlet of the enclosure are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid flows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 8, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet of the enclosure are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid flows, and wherein a pump is provided 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 Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 9, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to 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 Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 10, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches the substrate 2 is vertically disposed in the enclosure 11, and though Rifkin 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 this configuration in the invention of Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 11, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module, the power module comprising:
an enclosure 11;
an insulating liquid (column 3, lines 43-55) filling the enclosure 11;
a plurality of substrates 2 disposed inside the enclosure 11, and including an electrical circuit (3 to 4 to 20 to 15) to be electrically connected;
a connection body 4 electrically connecting the plurality of substrates 2 to each other; and
a plurality of chips 1 disposed on the plurality of substrates 2 such that the insulating liquid (column 3, lines 43-55) directly contacts the plurality of chips 1 so as to exchange heat with the plurality of chips 1, each chip 1 being an electrically connectable element.
Rifkin fails to teach each substrate 3 having a plurality of cooling fins in thermal contact with the insulating liquid.
Amo (figure 3c) teaches a substrate 389 having a plurality of cooling fins 371 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 121.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cooling fins of Amo in the invention of Rifkin because Amo teaches it exchanges heat generated by the semiconductor module with the refrigerant (paragraph 0059). A skilled artisan knows that the increased surface area provided by the cooling fins increases rate of heat exchange. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 14, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches each substrate 2 of the plurality of substrates 2 is a plate comprising a metal material (column 3, lines 6-12).
Pertaining to claim 15, Rifkin (figure 1) teaches a support body 4/2c inside the enclosure 11 and connected to the plurality of substrates 2 to fix the plurality of substrates 2 inside the enclosure 11.
In claim 16, Amo (figure 3c) teaches for each substrate 389 of the plurality of substrates, the plurality of cooling fins 371 are on a first side of the substrate 389, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
Regarding claim 17, though Rifkin (figure 1), which only teaches an inlet 16, fails to teach the enclosure 11 comprises an inlet and an outlet connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an inlet and outlet in the invention of Rifkin because the continuous flow of the insulating liquid improves the cooling effect and doesn’t require the refilling step which improves efficiency and productivity. 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).
With respect to claim 18, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet are arranged on a straight line, and the plurality of substrates is positioned on the straight line inside the enclosure between the inlet and the outlet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 19, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to teach the inlet and the outlet of the enclosure are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid flows, and wherein a pump is provided 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 Rifkin because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 20, though Rifkin (figure 1) fails to 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 Rifkin because it 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 Tuttle, US 10/834,853
Claim(s) 1-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuttle, US 10/834,853, in view of Amo et al., US 2017/0365536.
Concerning claim 1, Tuttle (figure 2) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module comprising:
an enclosure 224;
an insulating liquid 222 filling the enclosure 224;
a substrate 210 disposed inside the enclosure 224, including an electrical circuit to be electrically connected (column 3, lines 3-10); and
a chip 208 disposed on the substrate 210 inside the enclosure 224 such that the insulating liquid 222 directly contacts the chip 208 and so as to exchange heat with the chip 208, the chip 208 being an electrically connectable element (column 3, lines 3-10).
Tuttle fails to teach the substrate 210 having a plurality of cooling fins in thermal contact with the insulating liquid.
Amo (figure 3c) teaches a substrate 389 having a plurality of cooling fins 371 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 121.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cooling fins of Amo in the invention of Tuttle because Amo teaches it exchanges heat generated by the semiconductor module with the refrigerant (paragraph 0059). A skilled artisan knows that the increased surface area provided by the cooling fins increases rate of heat exchange. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 2, Tuttle teaches the substrate 210 is a plate comprising a metal material (column 5, lines 3-26 teaches they electrically connect therefore they are metal).
In claim 3, Tuttle (figure 2) teaches a support body 202 inside the enclosure 224 and connected to the substrate 210 to fix the substrate 210 inside the enclosure 224.
Regarding claim 4, Amo (figure 3c) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 371 are on a first side of the substrate 389, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
With respect to claim 5, though Tuttle, which teaches circulating through a thermal control system (column 6, lines 1-6), fails to specifically teach the enclosure 224 comprises an inlet and an outlet connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an inlet/outlet to circulate in the invention of Tuttle because an inlet/outlet is a conventionally known and used way to circulate. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 6, though Tuttle 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Tuttle because this configuration is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 7, though Tuttle fails to teach the inlet and the outlet of the enclosure are connected to a flow path through which the insulating liquid flows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Tuttle because this configuration is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 8, though Tuttle fails to 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 Tuttle 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).
Pertaining to claim 9, Tuttle (column 6, lines 1-6) teaches a cooler inside or outside the enclosure and configured to cool the insulating liquid.
In claim 10, Tuttle (figure 2) teaches the substrate 210 is vertically disposed in the enclosure, and though Tuttle 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 this configuration in the invention of Tuttle because this configuration 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 11, Tuttle (figure 2) teaches a liquid immersion-cooled power module, the power module comprising:
an enclosure 224;
an insulating liquid 222 filling the enclosure 224;
a plurality of substrates 210 disposed inside the enclosure 224, including an electrical circuit to be electrically connected (column 5, lines 3-10);
a connection body 202 electrically connecting the plurality of substrates 210 to each other; and
a plurality of chips 208 disposed on the plurality of substrates 210 such that the insulating liquid 222 directly contacts the plurality of chips 208/242 so as to exchange heat with the plurality of chips 208, each chip 208 being an electrically connectable element (column 5, lines 3-10).
Tuttle fails to teach each substrate 3 having a plurality of cooling fins in thermal contact with the insulating liquid.
Amo (figure 3c) teaches a substrate 389 having a plurality of cooling fins 371 in thermal contact with the insulating liquid 121.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cooling fins of Amo in the invention of Tuttle because Amo teaches it exchanges heat generated by the semiconductor module with the refrigerant (paragraph 0059). A skilled artisan knows that the increased surface area provided by the cooling fins increases rate of heat exchange. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 14, Tuttle teaches the substrate 210 is a plate comprising a metal material (column 5, lines 3-26 teaches they electrically connect therefore they are metal).
As to claim 15, Tuttle (figure 2) teaches a support body 202 inside the enclosure 224 and connected to the substrate 210 to fix the substrate 210 inside the enclosure 224.
In re claim 16, Amo (figure 3c) teaches the plurality of cooling fins 371 are on a first side of the substrate 389, a second side of the substrate, or on both the first side and the second side of the substrate.
Concerning claim 17, though Tuttle, which teaches circulating the insulating liquid (column 6, lines 1-6), fails to teach the enclosure 224 comprises an inlet and an outlet connecting from an outside to an inside to circulate the insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an inlet/outlet in the invention of Tuttle because they are the conventionally known and used way to circulate. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 18, though Tuttle 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Tuttle because this configuration is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 19, though Tuttle fails to 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 Tuttle 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 20, Tuttle (column 6, lines 1-6) teaches a cooler inside or outside the enclosure and configured to cool the insulating liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
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 6/13/26
Prosecution Insights