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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 8 & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Per claim 1, line 2, change “components of power electronics” to –components of the power electronics--.
b. Per claim 8, line 3 & 4, change “the traction machine” to –the high-voltage operated electrical traction machine--.
c. Per claim 15, line 2, change “the traction machine” to –the high-voltage operated electrical traction machine--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1, 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “wherein the EMC shielding element also comprises a particulate filter for the temperature control fluid flowing in via the inlet and flowing out via the outlet.”.
It is not clear from the claim if the particulate filter is located on both the inlet and the outlet. For examining purposes, Examiner asserts that the particulate filter is on only the inlet.
Claim 7 discloses “wherein the temperature control fluid which can be fed into the electronics housing via the inlet and the outlet, is an electrically insulating fluid for immersion temperature control.”.
It is not clear from the claim if the particulate filter is being fed into the inlet and into the outlet. For examining purposes, Examiner asserts that the particulate filter is being fed into the inlet of the electronics housing and being fed out of the electronics housing via the outlet.
Claim 9 discloses “wherein the power electronics can have immersion temperature control via the inlet and outlet in the electronics housing.”
It is not clear what “immersion temperature control via the inlet and outlet in the electronics housing” means. For examining purposes, Examiner asserts that the power electronics can be immersed in a temperature control fluid which enters the housing via the inlet and out via the outlet.
Claims 2-6,8,10-15 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected base claim(s)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event that 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 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 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 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang CN220606435 using Espacenet for English translation.
Per claim 1 Zhang et al. teaches an electronics housing (see fig.1) for power electronics of an electrified powertrain, comprising: a receiving space (see fig.3-4) for components of power electronics (5; [n0036], “UPS”); an inlet (104) into the receiving space for a temperature control fluid ([n0042], “air”); an outlet (8 or 105) into the receiving space for a temperature control fluid ([n0042], “The miniature axial flow fan 8 can quickly dissipate the heat inside the cabinet 1 to the outside”); and an electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) shielding element (1; [n0036], [n0041]) for protecting the power electronics (1; [n0036], [n0041]) and/or, conversely, surrounding components from possible electromagnetic interferences, wherein the EMC shielding element also comprises a particulate filter (107) for the temperature control fluid flowing in via the inlet and flowing out via the outlet ([n0043]).
Examiner’s note: The recitation “power electronics of an electrified powertrain” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of the limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Per claim 7 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 1, wherein the temperature control fluid which can be fed into the electronics housing via the inlet and the outlet, is an electrically insulating fluid ([n0042], “air”) for immersion temperature control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 2 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN220606435 in view of Wang et al. US2020/0365522.
Per claim 2 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing of claim 1,
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the EMC shielding element comprises or is formed from a metallic material.
Wang et al. however discloses wherein the EMC shielding element comprises or is formed from a metallic material ([0035]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the EMC shielding element comprise a metallic material because metallic materials are great EMC shielding materials, thus ensuring effective EMI shielding for the power electronic.
Per claim 10 Zhang et al. in view of Wang et al. teaches the electronics housing of claim 2, wherein the metallic material comprises copper ([0035]).
Claim(s) 3 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN220606435 in view of Dong et al. US2012/0300210.
Per claim 3 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 1,
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the particulate filter of the EMC shielding element is formed from a porous material.
Dong et al. however discloses a particulate filter made from a porous material ([0013]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the particulate filter from a porous material, because porous materials offer high efficiency in capturing fine particles, have excellent durability for harsh conditions and metals.
Per claim 11 Zhang et al. in view of Dong et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the electronics housing according to claim 3, wherein the porous material is an open-porous foam material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the porous material be made of an open-porous foam material because it enables good thermal insulation, breathability, and light weight, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; see also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied Indus. of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 4, 6 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN220606435 in view of Oh et al. US20040098827.
Per claim 4 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 1,
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the particulate filter of the EMC shielding element is formed from a grid.
Oh et al. however discloses wherein the particulate filter of the EMC shielding element is formed from a grid ([0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the particulate filter formed from a grid because it allows proper airflow into the cabinet while also ensuring proper particulate filtering.
Per claim 6 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 1,
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the EMC shielding element comprises at least one of a corrugation, a rib, a web, or a grid.
Oh et al. however discloses wherein the EMC shielding element comprises a grid ([0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the EMC shielding element comprise a grid particulate filter because it allows proper airflow into the cabinet while also ensuring proper particulate filtering.
Per claim 12 Zhang et al. in view of Oh et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the electronics housing according to claim 4, wherein the particulate filter of the EMC shielding element is formed from an expanded metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the filter of the EMC shielding element is formed from an expanded metal, because it enables excellent airflow and structural stability, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; see also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied Indus. of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 5 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN220606435 in view of Hirono et al. US2008/0174910.
Per claim 5 Zhang et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 1,
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein material of the particulate filter is plastically deformable in a non-destructive manner.
Hirono et al. however discloses wherein material of the particulate filter is plastically deformable in a non-destructive manner ([0039]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the particulate filter plastically deformable in a non-destructive manner, because It enables the filter to be durable.
Per claim 13 Zhang et al. in view of Hirono et al. teaches the electronics housing according to claim 5, wherein material of the entire EMC shielding element is plastically deformable in a non-destructive manner ([0039]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the particulate filter plastically deformable in a non-destructive manner, because It enables the filter to be durable.
Allowable Subject matter
7. Claims 8-9, 14-15 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.
Claim 8, includes allowable subject matter because of a motor vehicle comprising: at least one high-voltage operated electrical traction machine; power electronics for the traction machine; and at least one propulsion wheel, which can be driven by the traction machine to propel the motor vehicle, wherein the power electronics, are shielded and enclosed with temperature control in the electronics housing according to claim 1.
Claims 9 & 15 depends on claim 8, therefore allowable for the same reason.
Claim 14, includes allowable subject matter because of the electronics housing according to claim 7, wherein the temperature control fluid is an oil.
Email Communication
8. 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, 502.05.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. US2021/0337703 discloses a power module assembly.
Meyer et al. US2003/0151893 discloses a power converter having improved fluid cooling.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior are included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 5712723740. 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835