DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a cooling medium flows around the cooling structure and through a cooling channel of the cooling device (10)” in claims 1 and 8 and “the cooling structure (12) is configured as a pin fin structure including a plurality of pins” in claim 12 and “a cooling structure channel is formed between each pair of adjacent pins of the plurality of pins, wherein the cooling medium passes through each of the cooling structure channels” in claim 13 and “the cooling structure (12) includes a ribbed structure, wherein the ribbed structure is coupled to the bottom side of the cooling device (10)” in claim 14 and “a power module comprising a carrier substrate having conductive traces on which power semiconductors are arranged” in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A method” in line 1 should be changed to “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the amended limitation “the cooling structure (12) positioned relative to the cooling device (10) such that a cooling medium flows around the cooling structure and through a cooling channel of the cooling device (10)” would fail to comply with the enablement requirement for reasons as follow:
While the specification of the instant application describes “a cooling medium may flow around the surface-enlarging cooling structure 12 through a cooling channel of the heat sink” and the cooling structure 12 is positioned under the cooling device 10 as shown in Fig. 3 (See Fig. 3 and paragraph 21), the specification does not further describe any enabling disclosure clearly and fully as to (1) what “a cooling medium” is referring to compositionally and how “a cooling medium” flows around the cooling structure 12 and (2) how “a cooling channel” is formed in the cooling device 10 structurally. As such, undue experimentation would be required for determining the undisclosed conditions (1) and (2) as discussed above in order to make and/or use the invention.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence of record related to the pertinent Wands factors and reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, would not have been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Claims 2-7 and 9-14, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 8, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Regarding claims 12-14, the limitation “the cooling structure (12) is configured as a pin fin structure including a plurality of pins” in claim 12, “a cooling structure channel is formed between each pair of adjacent pins of the plurality of pins, wherein the cooling medium passes through each of the cooling structure channels” in claim 13, and “the cooling structure (12) includes a ribbed structure, wherein the ribbed structure is coupled to the bottom side of the cooling device (10)” in claim 14 are recited without the specification of the instant application clearly and fully providing the detailed structural configurations how theses “a pin fin structure including a plurality of pins”, “cooling structure channels”, and “a ribbed structure” are formed for the cooling structure 12, which is merely shown as a rectangular shape in Fig. 3 (See Fig. 3 and paragraph 21). As such, claims 12-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement with the similar reason for rejecting claims 1 and 8 as discussed above.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan et al. (US 2018/0153030 A1; hereinafter “Viswanathan”).
Regarding claim 15, Viswanathan teaches an electrical and/or electronic device (1) comprising: - a cooling device (10) having a top side (11) (a heat dissipation structure 14 having a top side), - an electrical and/or electronic assembly (40) (a microelectronic device 28) arranged on the top (11) of the cooling device (10) having a contact surface (41) (a bottom surface of 28), wherein the contact surface (41) faces the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) and is attached to the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) by means of an intermediate layer (30) (a device bond layer 38) arranged between the cooling device (10) and the contact surface (41) of the electrical and/or electronic assembly (40), wherein on the top side (11) of the cooling device (10), a laminarly extending coating (20) (a heat dissipation structure 16) is applied to the top side (11) of the cooling device (10), wherein the coating (20) on the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) comprises at least one recess (21) (a central opening 22), in which the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) is not coated, wherein the contact surface (41) of the electrical and/or electronic assembly (40) in the recess (21) is in contact with the cooling device (10) and attached to the cooling device (10) (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13-19).
Viswanathan does not teach that 1) “the coating (20) is made from nickel applied to the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) in a chemical process, the coating (20) configured to protect the cooling device (10) from corrosion” and 2) “the electronic assembly (40) is a power module comprising a carrier substrate having conductive traces on which power semiconductors are arranged”.
Regarding 1) “the coating (20) is made from nickel applied to the top side (11) of the cooling device (10) in a chemical process, the coating (20) configured to protect the cooling device (10) from corrosion”, while Viswanathan does not teach nickel as a material choice for the coating (20) (the heat dissipation structure 16), Viswanathan further teaches that the heat dissipation structure 16 is formed of a high thermal conductive material having suitable heat transfer function (paragraph 17) and the heat sink 18 is formed of a high thermal conductive material such as nickel (paragraph 16). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the heat dissipation structure 16 with nickel as a readily-available high thermal conductive material known in the art for obtaining the desired heat transfer function and to protect the underlying heat dissipation structure 14 from corrosion (i.e., forming 16 on 14, thereby resulting 16 covering a portion of 14) as claimed. Furthermore, it is noted that the limitation “in a chemical process” is a product-by process claim and therefore is treated according to MPEP 2113 (Even through product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production).
Regarding 2) “the electronic assembly (40) is a power module comprising a carrier substrate having conductive traces on which power semiconductors are arranged”, while Viswanathan does not teach the electron assembly (40) (the microelectronic device 28) is a power module since only a single microelectronic device 28 is shown in Fig. 1, Viswanathan further teaches that the microelectronic module 10 can include any practical number of interconnected microelectronic devices with non-exhaustive list of microelectronic devices (paragraph 15). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that to provide the power module comprising at least two power semiconductor devices electrically connected together formed on a carrier substrate such as a circuit board having conductive traces in order to provide the desired device functionality (for example, power amplifying, etc.) from the microelectronic module 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended and newly submitted claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While Goel et al. (US 2016/0294340 A1) is not cited for rejecting pending claims in this Office Action, Goel et al. teaches substantially identical electrical and/or electronic device (1).
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights