Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/522,244

HEAT RADIATING MEMBER AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 29, 2023
Examiner
TRAPANESE, WILLIAM C
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nidec Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
479 granted / 626 resolved
+8.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
656
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 626 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai et al. (hereinafter Hirai, US 2015/0250075). In regards to independent claim 1, Hirai teaches a heat radiating member comprising: a base part (11a) in a plate shape that extends in a first direction along a refrigerant flow direction (Y direction, [0076]) and in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (X direction), and has a thickness in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (Z Direction) (Hirai, Fig. 3, [0076]); a heat radiating fin part (13) formed by stacking a plurality of fins in the second direction (Fins 13-1->13-12 in X direction), the plurality of fins protruding from the base part toward a first side in the third direction (Z direction, Fig. 4, Item 13-1) and extending in the first direction (Fins 13 are extended in Y direction) (Hirai, Fig. 3,); and a plurality of flow path channels (12) formed in the second direction in the heat radiating fin part (12-1->12-13 are formed in X Direction) (Hirai, Fig. 3, [0076]), the plurality of flow path channels being formed by the corresponding fins adjacent to each other in the second direction (Hirai, Fig. 3, Item 13 adjacent to Item 12), and including: a first flow path channel (12-3) through which the refrigerant passes through a region facing a semiconductor element in the third direction (Fig. 4 Item Die 3a), the semiconductor element being disposed on a second side in the third direction of the base part (Die 3A attached to base plate 11a in Z direction) (Hirai, Fig. 4) ); and a second flow path channel through which the refrigerant does not pass (Hirai, Channel 12-1 includes limiting section, “the limiting sections 14 may be provided so as to completely block a part of the flow channels 12-1, 12-7, 12-13,” [0092]), and the first flow path channel having a lower average flow path resistance than the second flow path channel (Hirai, Channel 12-3 has a lower flow path resistance because it lacks a limiting section found in 12-1 which blocks the flow of refrigerant, “The limiting sections 14 as illustrated in FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and FIG. 6 limit flow rate of the refrigerant R flowing to the upper-end sides of the flow channel 12-7 (one example of the second flow channel) and the flow channels 12-1, 12-13, and the like which are not opposed to the heat releasing surface 3a-1. The limiting sections 14 limit the flow rate of the refrigerant R, for example, by blocking the flow of the refrigerant R,” [0087])). In regards to dependent claim 8, Hirai teaches: the heat radiating member according to claim 1 (Hirai, Fig. 3 Item 10); and the semiconductor element (Hirai, Fig. 3, Item 3A). 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. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai in view of Nishikawa et al. (hereinafter Kao, US 2022/0373274). In regards to dependent claim 2, Hirai fails to explicitly teach wherein the fins each include a side plate part extending in the first direction, and the side plate part is provided with an opening passing through the side plate part in the second direction to adjust flow path resistance of the flow path channel . Kao teaches wherein the fins each include a side plate part extending in the first direction (Kao, (Fig. 10, Item, 68), and the side plate part is provided with an opening passing through the side plate part in the second direction to adjust flow path resistance of the flow path channel (Kao, Fig. 10 Item 68, spoiler, [0076], induce turbulence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirai and Kao before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heat dissipater taught by Hirai to include fin side spoilers of Kao in order to obtain a heat dissipater including fin side spoilers. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it increase heat dissipation by introducing additional turbulence. In regards to dependent claim 3, Hirai fails to explicitly teach wherein the fins each include a protrusion protruding in the second direction from a part of a peripheral part of the opening. Kao teaches wherein the fins each include a protrusion protruding in the second direction from a part of a peripheral part of the opening (Kao, Fig. 10 Item 68, spoiler, [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirai and Kao before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heat dissipater taught by Hirai to include fin side spoilers of Kao in order to obtain a heat dissipater including fin side spoilers. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it increase heat dissipation by introducing additional turbulence. In regards to dependent claim 4, Hirai fails to explicitly teach wherein the fins each include a side plate part extending in the first direction and the side plate part includes an end on the first side in the third direction, the end being provided with a cutout recessed toward the second side in the third direction to adjust the flow path resistance of the flow path channel. Kao teaches wherein the fins each include a side plate part extending in the first direction (Kao, (Fig. 10, Item, 68), and the side plate part includes an end on the first side in the third direction, the end being provided with a cutout recessed toward the second side in the third direction to adjust the flow path resistance of the flow path channel (Kao, Fig. 10 Item 68, spoiler, [0076], induce turbulence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hirai and Kao before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heat dissipater taught by Hirai to include fin side spoilers of Kao in order to obtain a heat dissipater including fin side spoilers. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it increase heat dissipation by introducing additional turbulence. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose or teach an obvious combination of the following limitations when taken with the claim as a whole: Claim 5: wherein the fins each include a side plate part extending in the first direction and a top plate part extending in the second direction at the end of the side plate part on the first side in the third direction, and the top plate part is provided with a slit to adjust the flow path resistance of the flow path channel. Claim 6: wherein the flow path channel has a flow path width that is a second direction width between the fins adjacent to each other in the second direction, and the first flow path channel has a larger average flow path width than the second flow path channel. Claim 7: the first flow path channel includes a region including a region on a downstream side and a region on an upstream side, and facing a plurality of the semiconductor elements in the third direction, the plurality of the semiconductor elements being disposed in the first direction, and the region on the downstream side having a higher average flow path resistance than the region on the upstream side. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST. 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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. /WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588341
DISPLAY PANEL AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588561
LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575277
Display Substrate and Display Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568673
A LATERAL SURFACE GATE VERTICAL FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR WITH ADJUSTABLE OUTPUT CAPACITANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563791
NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+21.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 626 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month