DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to require “a heat sink including a means integral to the heat sink, for positioning the power module on and fastening it to the heat sink in a given position, the means being configured to produce a snap connection between the power module and the heat sink”.
Applicant argues that Comadre does not teach or suggest 1) means integral to the heat sink and 2) snap connection between the power module and heat sink.
Regarding 1), Applicant argues that Comadre teaches liner 148 and fastener 142, which are separate from the heat sink 136, and that the fastener 124 is only “snap-in” with respect to the liner 148.
Regarding 2), Applicant argues that Comadre does not teach the snap-in connection between the power module (package 100 of Comadre) and the heat sink 136.
PNG
media_image1.png
2095
2046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comadre teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 4 that the surface 124 of the semiconductor package 100 is retained against the heat sink by fasteners which “extend into the fastener receptacles 126 of the semiconductor package” ([0048]) which are formed “in the die pad” ([0049]). The liner 148 is an optional washer structure ([0049]). The fasteners 126 are configured to receive a snap-fit connector ([0046]). The heat sink 136 comprises perforations 146 which align with the fastener to enable the connection ([0049]).
As cited by Applicant as support for the amendment (Remarks, p. 5), Applicant’s disclosure teaches that the means integral to the heat sink for providing the snap connection may be “two fastening holes 112 for receiving pins and/or screws or bolts”. Comadre teaches the power module having fastener receptacles configured for a snap-fit connector, the heat sink having fastening holes, and the two connected directly by fasteners. The rejection is maintained.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apfelbacher (U.S. PGPub 2005/0006053) in view of Comadre (U.S. PGPub 2023/0125452) and Gircz (WO 2021/037854 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Apfelbacher teaches a heat sink for a semiconductor switching device (4, [0024]-[0027]; [0030], switch cabinet), comprising a contact surface for producing planar contact with at least one element of a power module ([0028]-[0029], Fig. 1); and a fastening plate having a molded-on means for positioning and mounting the heat sink on a carrier device (3, 5, [0024]-[0025]).
Apfelbacher does not explicitly teach means for positioning the power module on and fastening it to the heat sink in a given position, said means being integral to the heat sink and configured to produce a snap connection between the power module and the heat sink. Apfelbacher teaches combining the heat sink and power module by plug-in action, push-in action, or in an equivalent manner ([0028]).
Comadre teaches means for positioning a power module on and fastening it to a heat sink in a given position (Fig. 1, 106, [0032], [0036], [0042]; Fig. 4A/B, 136, 146, [0048]-[0049], said means being integral to the heat sink ([0049]) and configured to produce a snap connection between the power module and the heat sink ([0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Comadre with Apfelbacher such that the heat sink comprises means for positioning the power module on and fastening it to the heat sink in a given position, said means being integral to the heat sink and configured to produce a snap connection between the power module and the heat sink for the purpose of fastening the power module to the heat sink according to Apfelbacher ([0028]) with mechanical stabilization and enhanced thermal coupling (Comadre, [0041]).
Apfelbacher further does not explicitly teach wherein the heat sink, including said contact surface and said fastening plate is manufactured in one piece from an electrically insulating, thermally conductive plastics material having a thermal conductivity of at least 2 W/(m·K).
Apfelbacher teaches wherein the fastening plate is manufactured in one piece from a plastic material ([0025]), wherein forming multiple elements from a single structure is beneficial ([0026]), and wherein the contact surface of the heat sink is integral with the heat sink (Fig. 1).
Gircz teaches wherein a heat sink is manufactured from an electrically insulating thermoplastic polymer having a thermal conductivity of 3 W/(m·K) ([0039]-[0040]), wherein the heat sink may be manufactured in one piece along with a housing having a variety of structures (Fig. 1, [0046]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Gircz with Apfelbacher and Comadres such that the heat sink, including said contact surface and said fastening plate is manufactured in one piece from an electrically insulating, thermally conductive plastics material having a thermal conductivity of at least 2 W/(m·K) for the purpose of avoiding additional separate parts (Apfelbacher, [0029]) by manufacturing more elements with injection molding (Apfelbacker, [0014]) while maximizing surface area of the thermally conductive plastic (Gircz, [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz teaches wherein said means for positioning the power module on and fastening it to the heat sink in the given position has a fastening hole formed therein for receiving pins or screws or bolts of the power module (Comadre, [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz teaches wherein said molded-on means for positioning and mounting the heat sink is configured for mounting the heat sink on a rail (Apfelbacher, [0024], 5) and wherein a top hat rail is a known appropriate type of bearing rail to which a heater can be mounted ([0005]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Apfelbacher in combination with Comadre and Gircz such that said molded-on means for positioning and mounting the heat sink is configured for mounting the heat sink on a top hat rail for the purpose of using a known suitable type of bearing rail.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz teaches wherein said molded-on means for positioning and mounting the heat sink is configured to produce a snap connection between the heat sink and the top hat rail (Apfelbacher, [0026]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz teaches wherein the molded-on means for positioning and mounting the heat sink has screw fastening contours (Apfelbacher, [0033], 18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz teaches a semiconductor switching device, comprising a power module; and the heat sink according to claim 1 (Apfelbacher, Fig. 1, [0029]-[0030]; Comadre, [0002], [0032]; see rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Apfelbacher, Comadre, and Gircz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights