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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/3/2026 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
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:
Limitations of claim 3 (see the below 112(a) rejection for additional context);
Limitations of claims 5 and 13; and the
Limitations of claim 7;
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
Claims 1-5, 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “wherein at least one weak cooling region” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “wherein the at least one weak cooling region”.
Claim 4 recites, “in at least one weak cooling region” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “in the at least one weak cooling region”.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein at least one weak cooling region” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “wherein the at least one weak cooling region”.
Claims 2-3, 7-13 are objected to since they depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiency therein.
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 3 and 7 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites, “in at least one strong cooling region (20), the ribs (9) of the cooling rib assembly (7) when measured transversely to the longitudinal axis (30) are closer together than the ribs (9) in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21)” which, with the amendment to claim 1, is new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. Nowhere does the originally filed written description, claims, or drawings appear to support wherein the cooling rib assembly (7) comprises at least two strong cooling regions (20) each with a first flow resistance for the fluid and at least one weak cooling region (21) with a second flow resistance for the fluid, said first flow resistances being greater than the second flow resistance, wherein at least one weak cooling region (21) is tapered for flow direction and is positioned between the at least two strong cooling regions (20), wherein at least one strong cooling region (20), the ribs (9) of the cooling rib assembly (7) when measured transversely to the longitudinal axis (30) are closer together than the ribs (9) in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21), as now claimed. Put more simply, the amendment to claim 1 and the limitations of claim 3 combine to provide a claim scope to a new embodiment not believed to be supported by the originally filed specification.
Claim 7 recites, “in at least one strong cooling region (20), the ribs (9) are adjusted at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis, and the ribs (9) are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21)” which, with the amendment to claim 1, is new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. Nowhere does the originally filed written description, claims, or drawings appear support wherein the cooling rib assembly (7) comprises at least two strong cooling regions (20) each with a first flow resistance for the fluid and at least one weak cooling region (21) with a second flow resistance for the fluid, said first flow resistances being greater than the second flow resistance, wherein at least one weak cooling region (21) is tapered for flow direction and is positioned between the at least two strong cooling regions (20), wherein in at least one strong cooling region (20), the ribs (9) are adjusted at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis, and the ribs (9) are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21), as now claimed. Put more simply, the amendment to claim 1 and the limitations of claim 7 combine to provide a claim scope to a new embodiment not believed to be supported by the originally filed specification.
Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney et al. (WO 2019/210413 – hereinafter, “Kenney”) in view of Hoffman et al. (TW 200926951 – hereinafter, “Hoffman”).
With respect to claim 1, Kenney teaches (In Figs 1-6, 9) a cooler (10) for cooling power electronics (11), the cooler comprising: a housing (20 + 22) for installing the power electronics, and a cooling rib assembly (12, generally shown in Figs 7 and 9) with a plurality of ribs (50’) in a cooling channel (14) of the housing, wherein fluid can flow through the cooling rib assembly (12) along a longitudinal axis (See Fig 9), wherein the cooling rib assembly (12) comprises at least two strong cooling regions (48) with a first flow resistance for the fluid and at least one weak cooling region (46) with a second flow resistance for the fluid, said first flow resistances being greater than the second flow resistance (¶ 0115), and the at least one weak cooling region is positioned between the at least two strong cooling regions (See Fig 9, 46 is positioned between two 48’s in a direction of fluid flow).
Kenney fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the at least one weak cooling region is designed to be tapered for flow direction.
Hoffman, however, teaches a weak cooling region (80) is designed to be tapered for flow direction (See Fig B below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hoffman with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the weak cooling region is designed to be tapered for flow direction, as taught by Hoffman, since doing so would help to guide the flow through the weak cooling region as desired.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Kenney further teaches wherein the cooling rib assembly comprises at least two weak cooling regions (46) distributed and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis (See Fig 9).
With respect to claim 4, Kenney as modified by Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Hoffman further teaches wherein no ribs are formed in at least one weak cooling region (See Fig B above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hoffman with that of Kenney such that, in Kenney no ribs are formed in the at least one weak cooling region, as taught by Hoffman, since doing so would reduce the weight of the cooler.
With respect to claim 5, even though the claims are limited 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 process1. In the present case the product in claim 5 is the same as the product of Kenney and is thus unpatentable.
With respect to claim 8, Kenney further teaches wherein at least one strong cooling region (48) comprises a plurality of rows of ribs (50’’), each extending transversely to the longitudinal axis (See Fig 9) and adjoining one another directly along the longitudinal axis (See Fig 9, each rib appears to touch another rib along the longitudinal axis), wherein the ribs in a respective row of ribs are adjusted at the same setting direction opposite to the longitudinal axis (See Fig 9), and wherein the ribs are adjusted opposite to two adjacent rows of ribs (See Fig 9, ribs 50’’ (1) are offset to the left in Fig 9 and the second to bottom row of ribs 50’’ (2) are offset to the right in Fig 9 and the third to bottom row of ribs 50’’ (3) are again offset to the left).
With respect to claim 9, Kenney further teaches that in at least one strong cooling region (48), the ribs (50’’(1)) feature a first length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis (See Fig 9), and the ribs (50’(1)) in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (46) feature a second length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis, wherein the second length is greater than the first length (The length of 50’(1) is longer than the length of 50’’(1) in the longitudinal direction, see Fig 9).
With respect to claim 10, Kenney further teaches an assembly comprising a cooler (10) according to claim 1 and power electronics (11) having a plurality of power semiconductors (¶ 0017, “According to an aspect of the present disclosure, the electronic components include but are not limited to metal-oxide-semiconductor field- effect transistors (MOSFTs) and insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs).”) arranged on the housing (20, 22).
With respect to claim 11, Kenney further teaches that the cooling rib assembly (12) comprises at least three weak cooling regions (46, see Fig 9).
With respect to claims 1-2, 12, Kenney teaches (In Figs 1-6, 9) a cooler (10) for cooling power electronics (11), the cooler comprising: a housing (20 + 22) for installing the power electronics, and a cooling rib assembly (12, generally shown in Figs 7 and 9) with a plurality of ribs (50’) in a cooling channel (14) of the housing, wherein fluid can flow through the cooling rib assembly (12) along a longitudinal axis (See Fig 9), wherein the cooling rib assembly (12) comprises at least one strong cooling region (48) with a first flow resistance for the fluid and at least one weak cooling region (See Fig C below) a second flow resistance for the fluid, said first flow resistance being greater than the second flow resistance (¶ 0115), wherein the cooling rib assembly comprises at least two weak cooling regions distributed and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, wherein the cooling rib assembly comprises at least four weak cooling regions (See Fig C below).
Kenney fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the at least one weak cooling region is designed to be tapered for flow direction.
Hoffman, however, teaches a weak cooling region (80) is designed to be tapered for flow direction (See Fig B above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hoffman with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the weak cooling region is designed to be tapered for flow direction, as taught by Hoffman, since doing so would help to guide the flow through the weak cooling region as desired.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, even though the claims are limited 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 process1. In the present case the product in claim 5 is the same as the product of Kenney and is thus unpatentable.
Claims 3 and 7, as best understood by the Examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Hoffman and further in view of Tamura (US 2015/0189791).
With respect to claim 3, Kenney as modified by Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that in at least one strong cooling region, the ribs of the cooling rib assembly when measured transversely to the longitudinal axis are closer together than the ribs in at least one adjacent weak cooling region.
Tamura, however, teaches (In Fig 11) in at least one strong cooling region, the ribs (14) of a cooling rib assembly when measured transversely to a longitudinal axis are closer together than the ribs (14) in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (See Fig 11, Ribs at the bottom are more closely spaced together than the ribs at the top).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamura with that of modified Kenney, such that, in modified Kenney in at least one strong cooling region, the ribs of the cooling rib assembly when measured transversely to the longitudinal axis are closer together than the ribs in at least one adjacent weak cooling region, as taught by Tamura, since doing so would increase the density of fins transverse to the cooling liquid thus increasing further heat transfer from the ribs to the fluid.
With respect to claim 7, Kenney as modified by Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that in at least one strong cooling region, the ribs are adjusted at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis, and the ribs are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region, preferably parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Tamura, however, teaches (In Fig 3) in at least one strong cooling region, ribs are adjusted at a setting angle to a longitudinal axis, and the ribs are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (See Fig A below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamura with that of modified Kenney, such that, in at least one strong cooling region of modified Kenney, the ribs are adjusted at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis, and the ribs are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region, preferably parallel to the longitudinal axis, as taught by Tamura, since doing so would allow for a desired flow pattern through the ribs.
PNG
media_image3.png
429
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection to claim 5 that, “Dependent claim 5 specifies that: the cooling rib assembly (7) is manufactured by forming sheet metal into a turbulence plate; and at least one weak cooling region (21) is a free space in the turbulence plate that is cut out. FIG. 4 illustrates the cooling rib assembly (7) that is formed from sheet metal. See paragraphs [0021] and [0029]. FIG. 2 of the instant application schematically shows the at least one weak cooling region (21). See paragraph [0031]. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what a free space that is cut out is, so it is not necessary to show it in the drawings. The Applicant therefore submits nothing further is required.” (Present remarks page 5) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the figures shows the claimed manufacturing method.
Accordingly, the drawing objection to claim 5 is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection to claim 7 that, “Dependent claim 7 specifies that in at least one strong cooling region (20), the ribs (9) are adjusted at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis, and the ribs (9) are adjusted less in the at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21). As shown in FIG. 1, at least some of the ribs (9) in the cooling regions (21) are adjusted less at a setting angle to the longitudinal axis than at least some of the ribs (9) in the strong cooling regions (20). As such, these features are illustrated.” (Present remarks page 5) the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that referenced Fig 1 does not appear to show any of the limitations of claim 7, as alleged. Indeed, Fig 1 does not even appear to show the weak and strong cooling regions, itself a necessity to be able to show the setting angles of each.
Accordingly, the drawing objection to claim 7 is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection to claim 9 (Present remarks pages 5-6) the Examiner agrees and notes the drawing objection thereto has been withdrawn.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to the drawing objection to claim 7 that, “Dependent claim 13 specifies that the at least one weak cooling region (21) is a free space in the turbulence plate that is stamped out. FIG. 2 of the instant application schematically shows the at least one weak cooling region (21). See paragraph [0031]. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what a free space that is stamped out is, so it is not necessary to show it in the drawings. The Applicant therefore submits nothing further is required.” (Present remarks page 6) the Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the figures show the claimed manufacturing method.
Accordingly, the drawing objection to claim 13 is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Kenney discloses a heat exchanger having a heat transfer surface 12 including heat transfer-reducing zones 46 interposed with heat transfer-augmenting zones 48. The heat transfer surface 12 has a plurality of rows 50 of corrugations. The Examiner concedes that Kenney does not teach or suggest a weak cooling region designed to be tapered for flow direction. See Office action at 12. As such, Kenney does not teach or suggest at least one weak cooling region that is both tapered for flow direction and positioned between at least two strong cooling regions.
The Examiner relies on Hoffman to teach the limitation of original claim 6. Hoffman discloses a heat sink 50 having fins 51 attached to a heat sink base 52. The heat sink 50 has a diminishing number of fins 51 at the leading edge of the heat sink 50. The Examiner relies on the diminishing fin arrangement as the alleged "at least one weak cooling region (21) tapered for flow direction." However, because Hoffman's diminishing fin arrangement is confined to a leading edge of the heat sink 50, Hoffman does not teach or suggest a tapered weak cooling region positioned between at least two strong cooling regions. As such, Hoffman fails to cure the deficiencies of Kenney.” (Present remarks page 7) the Examiner respectfully notes that, in the present rejection to claim 1, Hoffman is not relied upon to teach at least one weak cooling region positioned between at least two strong cooling regions, rather this limitation is taught by Kenney as per the above rejection to claim 1. And while Kenney is deficient in teaching that the at least one weak cooling region is tapered for flow direction, this deficiency is remedied by Hoffman as per the above rejection to claim 1. To the best of the Examiner’s knowledge, there is no requirement that the secondary reference to Hoffman also teach the at least two strong cooling regions on each side of the at least one weak cooling region in order for Kenney and Hoffman to provide a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1.
Accordingly, the combination of Kenney and Hoffman is believed to teach the limitations of claim 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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm 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.
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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Prosecution Insights