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
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “wherein refrigerant inflow port” instead of “wherein a refrigerant inflow port”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akihiro (WO 2019159316 A1). Foreign reference provided with IDS, translation previously provided.
As to claim 1, Akihiro discloses: An electric power converter (Fig. 1-10) comprising:
an inverter circuit 31 including a plurality of switching elements (see Figures);
a first capacitor 5 and a second capacitor 7 connected in parallel with the inverter circuit;
a control circuit 9 configured to control the inverter circuit (par. 0012; translation); and
a connection conductor portion 20 that connects the first capacitor and the second capacitor, wherein
a first conductive member 40a, 50a, 50b (radiator/heat sink - thermally conductive; alternatively – housing of power module 6; par. 0029 of translation) is disposed between the control circuit 9 and the connection conductor portion 20 (portions of 40a, 50a, 50b are physically located between portions of 9 and 20; see Figures).
As to claim 2, Akihiro discloses: wherein the first conductive member is a cooler configured to cool the inverter circuit (par. 0016, 0029-0030, 0045-0055, 0065).
As to claim 4, Akihiro discloses: wherein a refrigerant inflow port is provided on a side of the cooler 40a (radiator/heat sink 40a is integrated with compressor 40, which has inflow port 40c and discharge port 40b; see par. 0053-0056 and Fig. 5-6).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akihiro (WO 2019159316 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shinohara (US 20140313806 A1).
As to claim 3, Akihiro does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first conductive member is provided on an upper surface and a lower surface of the connection conductor portion.
However, Shinohara suggests providing:
wherein the first conductive member 11, 10 (Fig. 4) is provided on an upper surface and a lower surface of the connection conductor portion (entire inverter driver circuit board 22);
in order to cool the inverter driver circuit board 22, semiconductor switching elements 300, and capacitors 500 (par. 0071-0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akihiro as suggested by Shinohara, e.g., providing:
wherein the first conductive member is provided on an upper surface and a lower surface of the connection conductor portion;
in order to cool the inverter driver circuit board, semiconductor switching elements, and capacitors.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akihiro (WO 2019159316 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 20170214293 A1).
As to claim 5, Akihiro discloses:
further comprising a second conductive member 40 (compressor; par. 0053), the second conductive member comprising a housing (shell 40f of compressor 40; see par. 0053-0057) integrated with the first conductive member 40a and disposed around the power module 6 (at least power module 6 is within circuit arrangement space 40e; Fig. 6; see par. 0057).
Akihiro does not explicitly disclose:
the second conductive member comprising a housing disposed around the first capacitor, the second capacitor, and the first conductive member.
However, Park discloses:
a second conductive member 2, 100 (compressor housing and inverter cover; par. 0067, 0084, 0091; Fig. 1-7), the second conductive member comprising a housing disposed around the inverter 202a, PCB 200;
in order to dissipate heat from the inverter/PCB to the compressor housing and refrigerant (par. 0037, 0047, 0067, 0084, 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akihiro as suggested by Park, e.g., providing the power conversion device 30 of Akihiro within a compressor/inverter housing as in Park:
the second conductive member comprising a housing disposed around the first capacitor, the second capacitor, and the first conductive member;
in order to dissipate heat from the power conversion device/PCB to the compressor housing and refrigerant.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has suggested that Akihiro does not disclose:
“a first conductive member is disposed between the control circuit and the connection conductor portion” (Remarks, p. 4-5).
In response, Examiner is unclear on how the identified elements are perceived to be different from the claim limitation. Examiner has clarified the rejection to identify that the “first conductive member” has been interpreted as thermally conductive (it is a cooler in claim 2), and that “disposed between” has been interpreted as physically disposed between, and not as electrically between in a circuit path.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835