Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/04/2024 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “51A” and has been used in the drawings (Fig 12), however specification does not mention it.. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “51A” and has been used in the drawings (Fig 12), however specification does not mention it.
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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 3,The term "a seal part is located outside the seal part" in Claim 3 renders the Claim indefinite, it is not clear as how a seal part could be outside the seal part. See; MPEP 2173.01.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2023/0188007) in view of Imai (US 2023/0011539).
Regarding Claim 1, Sano (In Fig 19) discloses a power conversion device (13) comprising:
a semiconductor module (61) forming a power conversion circuit (¶ 42, II. 1-6);
a case (70) having a first wall part (73a/73b) on which the semiconductor module (61) is disposed, and a second wall part (71) that is connected to the first wall part and defines a housing space (75) together with the first wall part (73a/73b), (Fig 19);
a first cooler (80) configured to cool the semiconductor module (61), the first cooler (80) including the first wall part (83a-83c) and a first flow path (82) formed inside the first wall part (83a-83c), (Fig 19), the first flow path (82) allowing a refrigerant (coolant, ¶ 32, II. 1-6) to flow through the first flow path (82), (Fig 19);
a second cooler (80) disposed on the semiconductor module (61) in the housing space (75) and configured to cool the semiconductor module (61), (Fig 19), the second cooler (80) having a second flow path (91) allowing the refrigerant (coolant, ¶ 32, II. 1-6) to flow through the second flow path (91), (Fig 19), the semiconductor module being between the first cooler and the second cooler; and
a coupling part (coupling part between 82 and 91) having a coupling flow path (flow path between 82 and 91) communicating with the first flow path (82) and the second flow path (91), (Fig 19), wherein
a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the first flow path (82) is larger than a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the second flow path (91), (Fig 19), however Sano does not disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the first flow path is larger than a cross-sectional area of the second flow path.
Instead, Imai (In Fig 3) teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the first flow path (flow path through 120) is larger than a cross-sectional area of the second flow path (flow path through 210), (¶ 70, II. 1-5, ¶ 72, II. 1-6), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai with a cross-sectional area of the first flow path being larger than a cross-sectional area of the second flow path to benefit from suppressing pressure loss of the fluid (Imai ¶ 4, II. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Sano in view of Katsumata discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however where Sano (In Fig 19) further discloses wherein the first flow path (82) is a main flow path (Fig 19), the second flow path (91) is a subsidiary flow path that is branched via the coupling flow path (flow path between 82 and 91) from the first flow path (82), (Fig 19), however Sano as modified does disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of the coupling flow path is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the first flow path.
Instead, Imai (In Fig 3) teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the coupling flow path (flow path through 210) is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow path (flow path through 120), (¶ 70, II. 1-5, ¶ 72, II. 1-6), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai with a cross-sectional area of the coupling flow path being smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow path to benefit from suppressing pressure loss of the fluid (Imai ¶ 4, II. 1-5).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2023/0188007) in view of Imai and further in view of Katsumata et al (US 2016/0183407).
Regarding Claim 7, Sano in view of Imai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the second cooler has a high heat transfer region and a low heat transfer region that is lower in heat transfer coefficient than the high heat transfer region, the first cooler, the semiconductor module, and the second cooler are stacked in a stacking direction, and the high heat transfer region faces at least a part of the semiconductor module in the stacking direction.
Instead, Katsumata (In Fig 6) further teaches wherein the second cooler (21b) has a high heat transfer region (regions directly below 11b, 11c) and a low heat transfer region (regions between 11b/11c) that is lower in heat transfer coefficient than the high heat transfer region (regions directly below 11b, 11c), (Fig 6), the first cooler (21a), the semiconductor module (11a, 11b, 11c), and the second cooler (21b) are stacked in a stacking direction (Fig 6), and the high heat transfer region (regions directly below 11b, 11c) faces at least a part of the semiconductor module (11a, 11b, 11c) in the stacking direction (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Katsumata with the second cooler having a high heat transfer region and a low heat transfer region being lower in heat transfer coefficient than the high heat transfer region, and the first cooler , the semiconductor module, and the second cooler being stacked in a stacking direction, and the high heat transfer region facing at least a part of the semiconductor module in the stacking direction to benefit from allowing the heat generated at the heat generating component to be transferred to the heat dissipator and to be dissipated into the atmosphere from the heat dissipator (Katsumata, ¶ 6, II. 9-13).
Regarding Claim 9, Sano in view of Imai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the semiconductor module is one of semiconductor modules, the semiconductor modules are horizontally arranged between the first cooler and the second cooler, and a stiffness of the second cooler is lower than a stiffness of the first cooler.
Instead, Katsumata (In Fig 1) further teaches wherein the semiconductor module (11a, 11b, 11c) is one of semiconductor modules (11a, 11b, 11c), the semiconductor modules (11a, 11b, 11c) are horizontally arranged between the first cooler (21a) and the second cooler (21), and a stiffness of the second cooler (21b) is lower than a stiffness of the first cooler (21a), (naturally 21a with bulkier body would has stiffness higher than 21b) , (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Katsumata with the semiconductor module being one of semiconductor modules, the semiconductor modules being horizontally arranged between the first cooler and the second cooler, and a stiffness of the second cooler being lower than a stiffness of the first cooler to benefit from allowing the heat generated at the heat generating component to be transferred to the heat dissipator and to be dissipated into the atmosphere from the heat dissipator (Katsumata, ¶ 6, II. 9-13).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Gao (US 12,341,082).
Regarding Claim 3, Sano in view of Imai discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however where Sano as modified does not disclose wherein a water flow resistance of the coupling flow path is smaller than a water flow resistance of the second flow path.
Instead, Gao (In Figs 2A, 3) teaches wherein a water flow resistance of the coupling flow path (flow path through 228, 229) is smaller than a water flow resistance of the second flow path (212), (Fig 2A).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Gao with a water flow resistance of the coupling flow path being smaller than a water flow resistance of the second flow path to benefit from providing an adaptable and expandable liquid cooling solution to meet required performance with lower cost while enhancing reliability (Gao, Col 1, II. 51-60).
Regarding Claim 4, Sano in view of Imai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the first cooler has a first fin disposed in the first flow path, the second cooler has a second fin disposed in the second flow path, and a height of the first fin is higher than a height of the second fin.
Instead, Gao (In Figs 2A, 3) further teaches wherein the first cooler (212) has a first fin (216) disposed in the first flow path (path through 212), the second cooler (213) has a second fin (217) disposed in the second flow path (flow path through 213), and a height of the first fin (216) is higher than a height of the second fin (217).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Gao with the first cooler having a first fin disposed in the first flow path, and the second cooler having a second fin disposed in the second flow path and a height of the first fin being higher than a height of the second fin to benefit from providing an adaptable and expandable liquid cooling solution to meet required performance with lower cost while enhancing reliability (Gao, Col 1, II. 51-60).
Regarding Claim 5, Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Gao discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein a fin pitch of the second fin is smaller than a fin pitch of the first fin.
Instead, Gao (In Figs 2A, 3) further teaches wherein a fin pitch of the second fin (217) is smaller than a fin pitch of the first fin (216).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Gao with a fin pitch of the second fin being smaller than a fin pitch of the first fin to benefit from providing an adaptable and expandable liquid cooling solution to meet required performance with lower cost while enhancing reliability (Gao, Col 1, II. 51-60).
Regarding Claim 6, Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Gao discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the first fin protrudes from a base, and a seal part between the coupling part and the first cooler is located outside of a seal part between the base and the first cooler in an extending direction of the first cooler..
Instead, Gao (In Figs 2A, 3) teaches wherein the first fin (216) protrudes from a base (205), (Fig 2A), and a seal part (seals, Col 5, II. 64-67) between the coupling part (228, 229) and the first cooler (212) is located outside of a seal part (seals, Col 5, II. 64-67) between the base (205) and the first cooler (212) in an extending direction of the first cooler (212), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Gao with the first fin protruding from a base and a seal part between the coupling part and the first cooler being located outside of a seal part between the base and the first cooler in an extending direction of the first cooler to benefit from providing an adaptable and expandable liquid cooling solution to meet required performance with lower cost while enhancing reliability (Gao, Col 1, II. 51-60).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Imai further in view of Katsumata and further in view of Daikoku et al (US 6,351,384).
Regarding Claim 8, Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Katsumata discloses the limitations of Claim 7, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the second cooler has a fin disposed in the second flow path, and the fin includes a first fin part disposed in the high heat transfer region, and a second fin part disposed in the low heat transfer region and connected to the first fin part.
Instead, Daikoku (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the second cooler (21) has a fin (23) disposed in the second flow path (flow path through 21), and the fin (23) includes a first fin part (27) disposed in the high heat transfer region (region directly above 10), and a second fin part (fin parts adjacent 27 not directly above 10) disposed in the low heat transfer region (regions adjacent to 27) and connected to the first fin part (27), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai further with Katsumata and further with Daikoku with the second cooler having a fin disposed in the second flow path and the fin including a first fin part disposed in the high heat transfer region and a second fin part disposed in the low heat transfer region and connected to the first fin part to benefit from improve the cooling performance without increasing the pressure loss of the cooling fluid (Daikoku , Col 3, II. 58-62).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Kawashima.
Regarding Claim 10, Sano in view of Imai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein a passive component disposed in the housing space, electrically connected to the semiconductor module and configured to generate heat when energized, wherein the passive component is disposed on the first wall part and is configured to be cooled by the first cooler.
Instead, Kawashima (In Figs 3, 10, 15) teaches wherein a passive component (50) disposed in the housing space (space within 20), (Fig 3), electrically connected to the semiconductor module (30) and configured to generate heat when energized (Fig 3), wherein the passive component (50) is disposed on the first wall part (21) and is configured to be cooled by the first cooler (40), (Fig 15).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Kawashima with a passive component disposed in the housing space and electrically connected to the semiconductor module and being configured to generate heat when energized, and the passive component being disposed on the first wall part and being configured to be cooled by the first cooler to benefit from providing improvements to the power control apparatus by reducing inductance (Kawashima, ¶ 31, II. 15-21).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Imai further in view of Kawashima and further in view of Yamahira et al (US 2020/0177101).
Regarding Claim 11, Sano in view of Imai and further in view of Kawashima discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Sano as modified does not disclose wherein the first cooler, the semiconductor module, and the second cooler are stacked in a stacking direction, and an upper end of the second cooler is lower in position than an upper end of the passive component in the stacking direction.
Instead, Yamahira (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the first cooler (11), the semiconductor module (2), and the second cooler (11) are stacked in a stacking direction (Fig 1), and an upper end of the second cooler (11) is lower in position than an upper end of the passive component (3) in the stacking direction, (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sano with Imai and further with Kawashima and further with Yamahira with the first cooler, the semiconductor module, and the second cooler being stacked in a stacking direction and an upper end of the second cooler being lower in position than an upper end of the passive component in the stacking direction to benefit from allowing suppression of a disadvantageous increase in the temperature of the capacitor, improving efficiency of cooling of the capacitor, and reducing the length of the entire device in protruding direction of the power terminals (Yamahira, ¶ 35, II. 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; Cooling Device US 2018/0184543, Heat Exchanger with Multi-zone Heat transfer surface US 2019/0360766, Semiconductor Device US 2020/0075452, Cooling Devices for Edge Computing and Heterogeneous Computing Electronics Hardware US 11,382,241. Other pertinent art made of record are on form PTO-892 notice of reference cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 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 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.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835