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 .
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, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/12/2024, 3/13/2024, 4/4/2025 have been fully considered and are 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 claims 5 and 13;
Limitations of claim 7;
Limitations of claim 9; and the
Limitations of claim 14
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 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites, “wherein the ribs (9) are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21) parallel to the longitudinal axis (30)” which appears to be new matter not supported by the originally filed specification. As per above, the drawings do not appear to show the limitations of claim 14 and the written description does not appear to provide any literal support for these limitations.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the ribs (9) are adjusted less in at least one adjacent weak cooling region (21) parallel to the longitudinal axis (30)” which is unclear. The specification, including the drawings and the written description, does not appear to provide any helpful context.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenney et al. (WO 2019/210413 – cited on the IDS filed 3/12/2024 – hereinafter, “Kenney”).
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 one strong cooling region (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 resistance being greater than the second flow resistance (¶ 0115).
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 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
771
media_image1.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.
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Tamura (US 2015/0189791).
With respect to claim 3, Kenney 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 Kenney, such that, in 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 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 Kenney, such that, in at least one strong cooling region of 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_image2.png
429
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Vanderwees et al. (US 11,525,638 – hereinafter, “Vanderwees”).
With respect to claim 4, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that no ribs are formed in at least one weak cooling region.
Vanderwees, however, teaches (In Fig 7) a cooler where no ribs are formed in at least one weak cooling region (44).
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 Vanderwees with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney no ribs are formed in at least one weak cooling region, as taught by Vanderwees, since doing so would reduce the weight of the cooler.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Hoffman et al. (TW 200926951 – hereinafter, “Hoffman”).
With respect to claim 6, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the 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_image3.png
422
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 N 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 2835
1 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)