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
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1-6 & 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Per claims 1-6 & 8-10 remove the element numbers from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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) 1-4,6,9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenney et al. US2019/0360766.
Per claim 1 Kenney et al. teaches a cooler (10) for cooling power electronics (11, see fig.43), the cooler (10) comprising: a housing (20 & 22, see fig.43) for accommodating the power electronics (see fig.43) and a cooling fin arrangement (12(1), 12(2), 12(3) or 12(n), see fig.17 & 19) with a plurality of fins (12; [0094], [0097]) in a cooling channel (14) of the housing (see fig.43), wherein fluid can flow through the cooling fin arrangement ([0079]-[0081]) along a longitudinal axis (see fig.19), wherein the cooling fin arrangement (see fig.17 & 19) comprises a plurality of cooling fin sections (12(n) see fig.17 & 19), wherein adjacent cooling fin sections have different fin geometries (see fig.40) and wherein the cooling fin sections are fixedly connected to one another (see fig.40), wherein the fins (12) are positioned at an angle of attack relative to the longitudinal axis (see annotated fig.40) and the angle of attack differs in at least two adjacent cooling fin sections (see annotated fig.40).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 1, wherein the cooling fin arrangement (12(n), see fig.17 & 19) is made of one piece (see fig.12; [0098]).
Per claim 3 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 2, wherein the cooling fin arrangement (12(n); [0098]) is produced by forming a metal sheet into a turbulence plate ([0097]-[0098], [0125]).
Per claim 4 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 1, wherein two respective adjacent cooling fin sections (12(n), see fig.12) are fixedly connected to one another by an intermediate section (74) of the cooling fin arrangement (see fig.11-12; [0136]).
Per claim 6 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 1, wherein the cooling fin arrangement (12(n)) has a constant material thickness and/or a constant fin height (see fig.17 19 & 43, “Examiner notes that the “OR” statement requires one condition to be met and the figures shows the fins to have fin height”) and/or a constant period length.
Per claim 9 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 1, wherein the fins (12) have a first length (see fig.40, “each sections have different lengths with the first section having longer lengths”) parallel to the longitudinal axis (see fig.40) and the first length decreases from one cooling fin section to the next cooling fin section (see fig.40).
Per claim 10 Kenney et al. teaches an arrangement (see fig.40 & 43) comprising a cooler (10) according to claim 1 and power electronics (11) comprising a plurality of power semiconductors (11) disposed on the housing (see fig.43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) 5 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney et al. US2019/0360766.
Per claim 5 Kenney et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the cooler according to claim 4, wherein, in at least one cooling fin section, the fins have a first length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis and the adjacent intermediate section has a second length measured parallel to the longitudinal axis, wherein the second length is greater than the first length.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second length be greater than the first length, because it enables effective cooling of the power electronics as it dissipates heat along the longitudinal length of the housing, thus ensuring effective cooling of the power electronics, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Per claim 8 Kenney et al. teaches the cooler according to claim 1, wherein the angle of attack decreases along a direction of flow from one cooling fin section to the next cooling fin section (see fig.40).
Kenney et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for wherein the angle of attack increases along a direction of flow from one cooling fin section to the next cooling fin section.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the angle of attack increase along a direction of flow from one cooling fin section to the next cooling fin section, because it enables effective cooling of the power electronics between sections, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Email Communication
4. 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art of Kenney et al. does not teach an angle of attack relative to the longitudinal axis.
Examiner disagrees and asserts that the liquid flows from the inlet 16 to the outlet 18 in a longitudinal axis as shown in the annotated drawing above thus creating an angle of attack between the fins and the liquid flow. The line running through each fin is shown to create varying angles between at least two fin sections.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights