DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
The claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.5: the clause “the semiconductor chip” should be amended to recite “the at least one semiconductor chip” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 1 Ln.5: the clause “the electrical terminals” should be amended to recite “the plurality of electrical terminals” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9: every instance of “the semiconductor module” should be amended to recite “the at least one semiconductor module” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claims 1, 2-3, 5, and 13: every instance “the cooling plate” should be amended to recite “the at least one cooling plate” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 1 Ln.14: the Office recommends amending “the top face and/or bottom face” to recite “the top face and/or the bottom face” for more consistent claim nomenclature (i.e., line 9 of the claim states “a top face and/or a bottom face”, and thus for more parallel antecedent nomenclature, “the top face and/or the bottom face” would be more consistent).
See next page→
Claims 1, 4, and 13-14: every instance of “the first housing part” should be amended to recite “the at least one first housing part” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claims 1, 13, and 17-18: every instance of “the cooling rib structure” and “the cooling ribs” should be amended to recite “the at least one cooling rib structure” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 1 Lns.22-23: the clause “two second housing parts one second housing part” should be amended to recite “two second housing parts, one second housing part” (i.e., including a comma between “two second housing parts” and “one second housing part”) for grammatical reasons.
Claim 1 Ln.24: the clause “and the further second housing part” should be amended to recite “and a further second housing part” for antecedent reasons (i.e., this is the first instance in which “further second housing part” is positively recited).
Claim 5 Ln.4: the clause “on the end faces” should be amended to recite “on the lateral end faces” for consistent claim nomenclature and clarity purposes (i.e., claim 1 has the limitations “lateral end faces”, “first end face”, and “second end face”, and thus makes it unclear as to what “end faces” of claim 5 is referring to- based on Applicant’s specification and the way claims 1 and 5 are structured, it is believed that the “end faces” of claim 5 are in reference to the “lateral end faces” of claim 1).
Claim 6 Ln.3: the Office recommends amending “wherein the semiconductor module assembly has at least two first housing parts” to recite “wherein the at least one first housing part has at least two first housing parts” to make it clear that the “at least two first housing parts” are in reference to the “at least one first housing part” of claim 1.
See next page→
Claim 6 Ln.7: the clause “in the region” should be amended to recite “in a region” for antecedent reasons.
Claims 7-10: every instance of “the connection element” should be amended to recite “the at least one connection element” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 9 Lns.1-2: the clause “producing a semiconductor module assembly” should be amended to recite “producing the semiconductor module assembly” for antecedent reasons (i.e., the claim is a linking claim that is linked to “the semiconductor module assembly” of claim 6).
Claims 9 Lns.4-5: it is believed that the clause “without mounted second housing parts” should be amended to recite “without mounting the two second housing parts” since it is believed that the “second housing parts” are in reference to the “two second housing parts” of claim 1, especially since claim 9 is a linking claim.
Claim 9 Lns.6-7: the clause “in the direction of” should be amended to recite “in a direction of” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 9 Ln.9: the clause “positioning at least one connection element” should be amended to recite “positioning the at least one connection element” for antecedent reasons (i.e., claim 6 already provides the antecedent basis for the limitation).
Claim 9 Lns.9-10: the Office asks that Applicant review the clause “of at least one end face” and see if it is supposed to be in reference to the “first end face” of claim 1, “second end face” of claim 1, “lateral end faces” of claim 1, or if it is actually in reference to a different “end face”. It is not clear based on the claim what “of at least one end face” is supposed to be in reference to.
See next page→
Claim 14 Ln.2: the clause “the opening” should be amended to recite “an opening” for antecedent purposes OR claim 14 should be amended to depend upon claim 13 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis for the claim limitation.
Claim 15 Ln.3: the Office recommends amending the clause “wherein more than one semiconductor module is arranged” such that it recites “wherein the at least one semiconductor module comprises more than one semiconductor module that is arranged” to make it clear that the “more than one semiconductor module” is in reference to the “at least one semiconductor module” of claim 1.
Claim 16 Lns.1-2: the clause “the second housing part at the first end face and the second housing part at the second end face” should be amended to recite “the one second housing part at the first end face and the further second housing part at the second end face” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 17 Lns.1-2: the Office recommends that the clause “wherein each semiconductor module has” be amended to recite “wherein each semiconductor module of the at least one semiconductor module has” or “wherein each semiconductor module of the more than one semiconductor module has” for consistent claim nomenclature and for clarity purposes.
Claim 17 Ln.3: the clause “for coolant entering” should be amended to recite “for the coolant” since claim 1 provides the antecedent basis for the coolant (see claim 1, line 19).
Claim 18 Ln.3: the clause “which the cooling ribs and cooling plates of respective semiconductor modules contact” should be amended to recite “which the at least one cooling rib structure and the at least one cooling plate of respective semiconductor modules of the more than one semiconductor module contact” in order to keep claim nomenclature consistent (i.e., there is no antecedent basis for “cooling ribs” and “cooling plates”, and the proposed amendment as outlined above maintains the same claim scope while also still utilizing consistent claim nomenclature with that of claim 1 and 15). Alternatively, claim 18 can be amended to be dependent upon claim 17 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis for “the cooling ribs”, but the clause “and cooling plates of respective semiconductor modules contact” still need to be amended as proposed above for the same reasons as those outlined above.
Claim 19 Lns.1-2: the clause “one of the second parts defines the inlet and the other defines the outlet” should be amended to recite “one of the two second housing parts defines the inlet and the other of the two second housing parts defines the outlet” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 20 Lns.1-2: the Office recommends amending the clause “wherein multiple connector elements are” to recite “wherein the at least one connector element comprises multiple connector elements that are” for clarity purposes (i.e., make it clearer that “multiple connector elements” are in reference to the “at least one connector element” of claim 6).
Claim 20 Lns.2-3: the clause “the opposite end faces on which the connector elements” should be amended to recite “the opposite lateral end faces on which the multiple connector elements” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Due to the outstanding number of informalities, the Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
See next page→
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the claim limitation “rib” (e.g., claims 1, 5, 12, and 14), the Office notes that based on Applicant’s figures and specification that “rib” simply means the outer edge of the molding compound (3) instead of some sort of projection/protrusion as typically understood in the art since that is what appears to be depicted in figures 1 and 7 of Applicant’s figures, and especially since claim 1 recites “said rib being formed by the molding compound”. Furthermore paragraphs [0046], [0048], and [0054] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) appear to define and describe “rib” as the outer edge of the molding compound (3). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation “a rib” was interpreted to mean the outer edge of the molding compound in order to stay consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding the “web” as recited in claim 14, the Office notes that the limitations was interpreted to mean “wall” since that is what appears to be depicted in figure 7 of Applicant’s figures. Applicant’s specification does not clearly outline what exactly what “webs” are, and thus based on figure 7 (which is the only figure that shows the “webs”), the “web” appears to be a wall portion of the cooling plate. Paragraphs [0052] and [0054] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification) are the only instances in which Applicant describes the “webs”, but the description does not clearly define what the intended scope of “webs” is supposed to be, and thus further supporting the Offices interpretation that “webs” is simply supposed to mean a wall/wall portion. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation “web” was interpreted to mean “wall”/“wall portion”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) in view of Mamitsu (US 20060096299).
Regarding claim 1, Grassmann discloses (Figs.1 and 3):
A semiconductor module assembly comprising at least one semiconductor module (100) having at least one semiconductor chip (102), which is encapsulated substantially parallelepipedally (See Fig.3) by a molding compound (104) and has a plurality of electrical terminals (118) electrically connected ([0083]) to the semiconductor chip (102), the electrical terminals (118) projecting from the molding compound (104) (Terminals Projecting from Molding Compound: See Fig.3), a rib (outer edge of 104) running peripherally along lateral end faces (See Figure Below) of the semiconductor module (100) (See Figure Below: the outer edge of 104 run peripherally along the lateral end faces of 100, and is formed by 104), said rib being formed by the molding compound (104), at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) on at least a top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or a bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) of the semiconductor module (100), the cooling plate (108 and/or 110) being enclosed by molding (See Fig.1) in the molding compound (104), but at least partly uncovered by the molding compound (104) (See Figs.1 and 3, [0082], and [0084]: a portion of 108 and/or 110 is not covered by 104, but 108 and/or 110 is also enclosed by 104 due to 108 and/or 110 being embedded in 104), at least one cooling rib structure (158) fixedly connected to (See Fig.1) the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) on the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or bottom face (Fig.1: bottom face of 104) of the semiconductor module (100), at least one first housing part (152), the first housing part (152) surrounding (See Fig.1) the cooling rib structure (158) and is connected to (See Fig.1) the semiconductor module (100) at the rib (outer edge of 104), thereby allowing access for coolant ([0077]: "a cooling cavity 154 for temporarily accommodating flowing cooling fluid") to the cooling rib structure (158), a sealing element (159) arranged between the first housing part (152) and the rib (outer edge of 104) (Fig.1: 159 is between 152 and 104, including the rib defined by 104).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
598
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Grassmann does not disclose:
The first housing part being open on a first end face and a second end face opposite the first end face, thereby allowing access for coolant to the cooling rib structure, two second housing parts one second housing part being connected to the first housing part on the first end face and the further second housing part being connected to the first housing part on the second end face, wherein the two second housing parts combine to include a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet at the first and second end faces.
Mamitsu however teaches (Figs.7A-B):
The semiconductor module (1b) being open on a first end face (See Figure Below) and a second end face (See Figure Below) opposite the first end face, thereby allowing access for coolant (Fig.7B: the arrows), two second housing parts (80c and e) one second housing part (80c) being connected to the semiconductor module (1b) on the first end face and the further second housing part (80e) being connected to the semiconductor module (1b) on the second end face (One Second Housing Part connected to First End Face and Further Second Housing Part connected to Second End Face: See Figure Below- 80c is provided at the first end face and 80e is provided at the second end face), wherein the two second housing parts (80c and e) combine to include a coolant inlet (81c) and a coolant outlet (81e) at the first and second end faces.
PNG
media_image2.png
516
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to modify the device of Grassmann such that the first housing part is open on a first end face and a second end face opposite the first end face to allow the coolant access to the cooling rib structure, and such that it includes two second housing parts that are arranged such that one second housing part is connected to the first housing part on the first end face and a further second housing part is connected to the first housing part on the second end face so that the two second housing parts combine to include a coolant inlet and a coolant outlet at the first and second end faces, as claimed, in order to provide an arrangement that can reduce the overall size as taught by Mamitsu ([0172]) while also still providing an efficient means of cooling the at least one semiconductor module.
Regarding claim 2, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the cooling plate (108 and/or 110) is a metallic material ([0079] and [0081]: 114 of both 108 and 110 is a metallic material).
Regarding claim 3, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the cooling plate (110) is copper ([0079] and [0081]: 114 of both 108 and 110 is a copper layer).
Regarding claim 5, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the cooling plate (108 and/or 110) extends across the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and/or bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) of the semiconductor module (100) as far as the rib (outer edge of 104) on the end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) of the semiconductor module (100) (Fig.1: 100 extends across the top face of 104, and thus of 100, and extends as far as the rib on the lateral end faces of 100).
Regarding claim 11, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the lateral end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) extend between the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) and the bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) (See Figure of Claim 1: the lateral end faces are between the top face and bottom face).
Regarding claim 12, Grassmann further discloses:
See next page→
Wherein the rib (outer edge of 104) extends fully around all of the lateral end faces (See Figure of Claim 1) (See Figure of Claim 1: the rib has to extend fully around all of the lateral end faces since the lateral end faces are used to define the rib).
Regarding claim 13, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the first housing part (152) includes an opening (154) thorough which the cooling ribs contact (158) the cooling plate (108 and/or 110).
Regarding claim 14, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the first housing part (152) includes a web (bottom wall portion of the upper 152) surrounding the opening (154), wherein the web (bottom wall portion of the upper 152) at least partially overlaps the rib (outer edge of 104) (Fig.1: the bottom wall portion that defines the “web” overlaps with the outer edge of 104 that defines the “rib”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) in view of Mamitsu (US 20060096299), or alternatively over Grassmann and Mamitsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergmann (US 20160178282).
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that the limitation as recited in claim 4 (e.g., “wherein the first housing part is a strand-cast part”) does not have actual patentable weight since the claims are product-by-process claims that do not affect the patentability of the product. In product-by- process claims, “one a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Even though the claims are limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not the recited process steps which must be established. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a "[p]roduct-by-process claim, although recited subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”, In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentability distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Examiner emphasizes that the end product of Grassmann as modified by Mamitsu will result in a first housing part that is made out of some material that will be connected to the semiconductor module and resulting in the claimed device as respectively claimed in claim 1.
Alternatively, Bergmann teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein a housing part ([0028]) is a strand-cast part ([0028]: continuous casting and strand-casting are synonyms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Bergmann to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the first housing part is a strand-cast part, as claimed, in order to provide a cost-efficient means of producing the first housing part as taught by Bergmann ([0028]).
Claims 6-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) and Mamitsu (US 20060096299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (CN 106711109) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document).
Regarding claim 6, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the semiconductor module assembly (See Fig.1) has at least two first housing parts ([0076]: 152 is made of two-pieces), an upper first housing part (Fig.1: upper 152) being arranged on the top face (Fig.1: upper face of 104) of the semiconductor module (100) and a lower first housing part (Fig.1: lower 152) being arranged on the bottom face (Fig.1: lower face of 104) of the semiconductor module (100).
However, modified Grassmann does not teach:
The upper first housing part and the lower first housing part being fixedly connected via at least one connection element in the region of at least one end face of the semiconductor module.
Xie however teaches (Figs.5-6):
At least one connection element (4) in the region of at least one end face (Figs.5-6: end faces of 3) of the semiconductor module (3) (Figs.5-6 and [0041]: 4 is in a region of at least one end face of the 3 in order to provide a secure connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xie to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that it has at least one connection element that is arranged such that the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part are fixedly connected via the at least one connection element in the region of at least one end face of the semiconductor module, as claimed, in order to further improve the connection between the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part due to the at least one connection element providing additional holding means as taught by Xie ([0041]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Grassmann does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the connection element is a metallic material.
However, modifying the at least one connection element such that it is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., metallic material), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to further optimize the holding means due to the material of the connection element since it is known in the art that metallic materials provide reliable holding means due to its robust properties (i.e., it is known in the art that metals are rigid, and thus structurally reliable), and thus optimizing the holding means, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Xie further teaches:
Wherein the connection element (4) is formed in strip-shaped fashion (See Fig.6: 4 is in a strip-shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xie to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the at least one connection element is formed in a strip-shaped fashion, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved holding means as outlined in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, Xie further teaches:
Wherein multiple connector elements (4- there are multiple 4’s) are provided on opposite lateral end faces (Fig.5: one group of 4’s are on the upper side of 1 and 3, and the second group of 4’s are provided on the lower side of 1 and 3), wherein the opposite end faces on which the connector elements (4- there are multiple 4’s) are provided are different than the open first and second end faces (the faces of 3 that face the 2’s will define the open first and second faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xie to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such multiple connector elements are provided on opposite lateral end faces, and such that the opposite end faces on which the connector elements are provided are different than the open first and second end faces, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved holding means as outlined in claim 6 above.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925) and Mamitsu (US 20060096299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 9449895).
Regarding claim 15, Grassmann further discloses:
See next page→
Wherein the at least one first housing part (152) includes an upper first housing part (the upper 152) and a lower first housing part (152).
However, modified Grassmann does not teach:
Wherein more than one semiconductor module is arranged end-to-end within a single upper first housing part and lower first housing part.
Mamitsu however further teaches:
Wherein more than one semiconductor module (1b) is arranged end-to-end (Fig.7A-B: 1b is defined by a plurality of semiconductor modules that are arranged end-to-end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that it has more than one semiconductor module arranged end-to-end, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall electrical capabilities due to the increased number of semiconductor modules.
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein more than one semiconductor module is arranged end-to-end within a single upper first housing part and lower first housing part.
Yoo however teaches (Figs.1-3B):
Wherein more than one semiconductor module (100) is arranged end-to-end (Figs.2A-B: and Col.3 Lns.26-29: each 100 is arranged end-to-end within 108) within a single upper first housing part (116) and lower first housing part (122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Yoo to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the upper first housing part and lower first housing part contain the more than one semiconductor module that is arranged end-to-end, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities (i.e., a single housing can house multiple semiconductor modules in order to cool the semiconductor modules, and thus simplifying the assembly needed cool the plurality of semiconductor modules).
Regarding claim 16, Mamitsu further teaches:
Wherein the second housing part (80c) at the first end face (See Figure of Claim 1) and the second housing part (80e) at the second end face (See Figure of Claim 1) are attached at opposite ends of the housing (80c and 80f) (Figs.7A and B: with respect to both 80c and 80f, 80c and 80e are on opposite ends of 80c and 80f).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the second housing part at the first end face and the second housing part at the second end face are attached at opposite ends of the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved design as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Mamitsu further teaches:
Wherein one of the second parts (80c) defines the inlet (81c) and the other (80e) defines the outlet (81e), where the same inlet (81c) and outlet (81e) are provided for each of the semiconductor modules (Figs.7A-B: the same inlet and outlet are used for all of the semiconductor modules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mamitsu to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that one of the second parts defines the inlet and the other defines the outlet so that the same inlet and outlet are provided for each of the semiconductor modules, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved assembly as outlined in claim 1 above.
Claims 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann (US 20180082925), Mamitsu (US 20060096299), and Yoo (US 9449895) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ushijima (US 20160104654).
Regarding claim 17, modified Grassmann does not explicitly teach:
Wherein each semiconductor module has dedicated cooling ribs, wherein the cooling ribs are aligned to define a continuous path for coolant entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces.
Ushijima however teaches (Figs.12 and 15, and [0063]: Fig.15 is an extension of figures 12-14, and thus the relevant portions of figure 12 can be used in figure 15 as well):
Wherein each semiconductor module (122 and/or 124) has dedicated cooling ribs (30), wherein the cooling ribs (30) are aligned to define a continuous path (Fig.15 and [0063]: “so as to form one continuous cooling medium passage”) for coolant ([0063]: “cooing medium”) entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces (Figs.12 and 15: the faces of 122 and/or 124 that faces 44 will define the “open first and second faces”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ushijima to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that each semiconductor module has dedicated cooling ribs, and such that the cooling ribs align to define a continuous path for coolant entering and exiting through the open first and second end faces, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling efficiency due to each of the semiconductor modules having cooling ribs that increase the overall heat dissipation area, and thus increasing the total heat dissipation area.
Regarding claim 18, Grassmann further discloses:
Wherein the upper first housing part (the upper 152) and the lower first housing part (the lower 152) each an opening (154) through which the cooling ribs (158) and the at least one cooling plate (108 and/or 110) of the semiconductor module (100) contact each other (Fig.1: the 154 in each 152 allows 158 to contact to their corresponding 108 and 110).
However modified Grassmann does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part each include multiple openings through which the cooling ribs and cooling plates of respective semiconductor modules contact each other.
Ushijima however teaches (Figs.12 and 15, and [0063]: Fig.15 is an extension of figures 12-14, and thus the relevant portions of figure 12 can be used in figure 15 as well):
Wherein the at least one first housing part (130) each include multiple openings (132 and/or 134) (Fig.15: the 130’s in combination define the “at last one first housing part” and thus there are multiple 132’s and multiple 134’s) through which the cooling ribs (30) and cooling plates (24) of respective semiconductor modules (122 and/or 124) contact each other (See Figs.12 and 15: the 132’s and/or 134’s allows the 30’s and 24’s of respective 122’s and 124’s to contact each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ushijima to further modify the device of modified Grassmann such that the upper first housing part and the lower first housing part each include multiple openings through which the cooling ribs and cooling plates of respective semiconductor modules contact each other, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities due to the increased number of heat dissipation components being utilized to dissipate heat from the more than one semiconductor module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon an allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and at least in part, because claim 9 recites the limitations: “applying a prestressing force to the semiconductor module assembly in the direction of the top face and/or the bottom face of the semiconductor module, positioning at least one connection element in the region of at least one end face so that the connection element bears partly against the upper first housing part and partly against the lower first housing part, cohesively connecting the connection element to the upper first housing part and to the lower first housing part, releasing the prestressing force”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 9, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
As outlined below, the remaining prior art references of record teach other semiconductor cooling devices. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 9. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Furthermore, as outlined in the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority filed in the European PCT Office on 11/28/2023, the report also states that claim 9 is believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reason as outlined above. Therefore, claim 9 of the instant application is also believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reason as those provided in the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 9 is believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11664296: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules.
See next page→
US 20210335693: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules.
US 20200161256: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules.
US 20190096784: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules. Each semiconductor module having a plurality of heat dissipation fins.
US 20170341638: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules, and a singular upper housing and lower housing that covers the plurality of semiconductor modules.
US 20110316143: teaches a liquid cooling module for a plurality of semiconductor modules. Each semiconductor module having a plurality of heat dissipation fins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
See next page→
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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835