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 .
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 “grounding pattern of the board” (e.g., claim 1) 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, 3, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.10: the clause “exposed to the outside” should be amended to recite “exposed to an outside” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 3 Ln.2: the clause “surface of the base” should be amended to recite “surface of the board” since it is believed that Applicant made a typographical error.
Claim 11 Ln.2: the clause “from the upper surface” should be amended to recite “from an upper surface” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 14 Ln.5: the Office recommends checking on the spacing between the comma and the word “wherein” (i.e., there seems to be a double space between the comma and the word “wherein”).
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
See next page→
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2018093195).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses (Figs.15-18):
A converter comprising: a first housing (3011) including a flow path (3018); a second housing (3014) coupled to the first housing (3011); a board (3020) being disposed between the first housing (3011) and the second housing (3014) (Figs.16-18 and [0231]: 3020 is between 3011 and 3014 so that 3020 can be placed on 3012 in the assembled state); and a cooling plate (3012 and 3019 in combination) disposed between the board (3020) and the first housing (3011) (Figs.16-18: 3012 is between 3020 and the bottom surface of 3011 where 3013 is located), wherein the cooling plate (3012 and 3019 in combination) includes a base (3012) and a plurality of heat dissipation fins (3019) being protruded from one surface (bottom surface of 3012) of the base (3012), and wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins (3019) are disposed inside (See Fig.17) the flow path (3018).
Regarding claim 15 Kim further discloses:
Wherein the plurality of heat dissipation fins (3019) are formed to correspond to a shape of the flow path (3018) and are arranged to be spaced apart from each other at a predetermined distance (Fig.17 and [0227]: 3019 fit inside 3018, and thus corresponds to a shape of 3018, in order to provide the increased cooling efficiency, and the 3019's are spaced apart from each other at a distance that will define the "predetermined distance").
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2001308246) in view of Suzuki (US 20240098881) (referred to as Suzuki’81).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses (Figs.1-4):
A converter comprising: a first housing (1) including a flow path (2); a second housing (101) coupled to (See Fig.3) the first housing (1); a board (103) disposed between (See Figs.2-3) the first housing (1) and the second housing (101); and a cooling plate (104 and 105 in combination) located between (Fig.2: 104 is provided between 103 and 1) the board (103) and the first housing (1), and wherein a first portion (See Figure Below) of the cooling plate (104 and 105 in combination) is located between the first housing (1) and the second housing (101) and is exposed to the outside (See Figure Below) of the first housing (1).
PNG
media_image1.png
872
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Suzuki does not disclose:
Wherein the cooling plate includes a grounding region electrically connected to a grounding pattern of the board.
Suzuki’81 however teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the cooling plate (4) includes a grounding region (Fig.1: area where 8 is) electrically connected to a grounding pattern ([0034]: “the circuit board 5 has, at a hole edge of at least one of the plurality of screw through holes 50, a pattern for grounding the above-mentioned circuit pattern”) of the board (5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Suzuki’81 to modify the device of Suzuki such that the cooling plate includes a grounding region that is electrically connected to a grounding pattern of the board, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of grounding the board.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki further discloses:
Wherein a plurality of electronic components (102) is disposed on one surface (upper surface of 103) or another surface (bottom surface of 103) of the board (103) (Fig.2: 102 is disposed on the “one surface” of 103), and wherein a second portion (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling plate (104 and 105 in combination) is in contact with the plurality of electronic components (102) (Figs.2-4: 104, including the second portion, will be at least in thermal contact with 102).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki further discloses:
Wherein a shape of the flow path (2) is formed to correspond to an arrangement region (Fig.1: the dashed lines where 101 is shown will define the “arrangement region” of 102) of the plurality of electronic components (102) (Figs.1-3, [0016], and [0018]: 2 has to be formed to correspond to the arrangement region of 102 in order to dissipate heat generated by 102).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki further discloses:
A sealing member (9) disposed between (Fig.3: 9 is between 105 of 104,105 and 101) the cooling plate (104 and 105 in combination) and the second housing (101) and disposed so as to surround a periphery of the flow path (2) (Figs.1-4 and [0020]: 9 fits and surrounds a periphery of 6, and thus also surround a periphery of 2 in order to provide a liquid sealed connection between 2 and 104).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki further discloses:
Wherein the sealing member (9) has a shape corresponding to a shape of the flow path (2) (Figs.1-3 and [0020]: 9 has a shape that corresponds to a shape of 5, which will also define a shape of 2 since 5 is the opening that allows communication among 1, 2, and 104, and thus 9 has a shape that corresponds to a shape of 2 in order to provide a liquid sealed connection).
Regarding clam 11, Suzuki’81 further teaches:
Wherein the grounding region (Fig.1: area where 8 is) of the cooling plate (4) is protruded from the upper surface (upper surface of 4) of the cooling plate (4) and comes into contact with the grounding pattern ([0034]: “the circuit board 5 has, at a hole edge of at least one of the plurality of screw through holes 50, a pattern for grounding the above-mentioned circuit pattern”) of the board (5) (Fig.1 and [0034]: the grounding region is on the upper surface of 4 and comes into at least electrical contact with the grounding pattern of 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Suzuki’81 to further modify the device of modified Suzuki such that the grounding region of the cooling plate protrudes from the upper surface of the cooling plate and comes into contact with the grounding pattern of the board, as claimed, in order to achieve the simple and efficient grounding means as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki does not teach:
Wherein a cross-sectional area of the cooling plate is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the board and larger than a cross-sectional area of the flow path.
However, modifying the size of the cooling plate, board, and flow path such that they have a desired cross-sectional area, including as claimed (i.e., cross-sectional area of the cooling plate being smaller than a cross-section area of the board, but larger than a cross-section area of the flow path), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to optimize the heat transfer capabilities from the board to the flow path (i.e., providing a more desired, and thus optimized heat path, due to the cross-sectional area providing a desired thermal resistance), since 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).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki further discloses:
Wherein the cooling plate (104 and 105 in combination) is larger than a region formed by an outermost portion (Fig.1: the dashed line that “4” is pointed to will define the “outermost portion” of 2, which will also define the “region”) of the flow path (2) (Figs.1-3: 104 will be larger than the region formed by the outermost portion of 2 so that 104 can fit into 1 and connect to 1 via 106).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2001308246) and Suzuki (US 20240098881) (referred to as Suzuki’81) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ji (KR 20190135225) (of record, cited in the IDS including Original Copy and Translation of the Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki does not teach:
Wherein the cooling plate includes a plurality of contact portions protruded from the other surface of the base, and wherein the plurality of contact portions corresponds to positions of the plurality of electronic components.
Ji however teaches (Figs.1-4):
A plurality of contact portions (62) protruded from the other surface (bottom surface of 30) of the base (30) (Figs.3-4: 62 protrudes from the bottom/other surface of 30 and extends to the upper/one surface of 30), and wherein the plurality of contact portions (62) corresponds to positions (See Figs.1 and 3-4) of the plurality of electronic components (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ji to further modify the device of modified Suzuki such that the cooling plate includes a plurality of contact portions that protrude from the other surface of the base and corresponds to the positions of the plurality of electronic components in order to provide an improved means of mechanically and thermally securing the base due to the contact portions providing an improved mechanical holding means as taught by Ji ([0031]- the contact portions act as an additional holding joint that can better secure the board).
See next page→
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2001308246) and Suzuki (US 20240098881) (referred to as Suzuki’81) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2018093195).
Regarding claim 7, neither Suzuki nor Suzuki’81 explicitly teaches:
Wherein the first housing and the second housing are each made of non-metallic material.
Kim however teaches (Figs.1-3):
Wherein the first housing (120) and the second housing (130) are each made of non-metallic material ([0088] of Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Kim to further modify the device of modified Suzuki to incorporate the second housing taught by Kim and arrange it such that it couples to the first housing so that the second housing taught by Kim defines the claimed housing (i.e., incorporate the second housing taught by Kim such that it covers the upper cover 101 of Suzuki and couples to the first housing 1 of Suzuki so that the second housing taught by Kim defines the claimed “second housing”), and such that the first housing and second housing are made of non-metallic material, as claimed, in order to provide improved protection due to the second housing of Kim providing additional protection means for the device of modified Suzuki in a cost effective manner since it is generally known in the art that plastic is cheaper than metal.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, neither Suzuki nor Suzuki’81 explicitly teaches:
Wherein the cooling plate is made of metal.
Kim however teaches (Figs.15-18):
Wherein the cooling plate (3012 and 3019 in combination) is made of metal ([0224] of Translation: 3012, which is a part of 3010 can be made out of metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Kim to further modify the device of modified Suzuki such that the cooling plate is made out of metal, as claimed, in order to optimize the thermal dissipation capabilities due to metal being known in the art as being an excellent conductor of heat.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2018093195).
Regarding claim 16, the relied upon embodiment of Kim does not disclose:
A sealing member disposed between the cooling plate and the second housing and arranged to surround the flow path.
However, Kim presents another embodiment that teaches (Figs.5 and 8):
A sealing member (140) and arranged to surround the flow path (200) (See Figs.5 and 8: in the connected state in which 140 is connected to 110, 140 will surround 200 to seal 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment of Kim to modify the primary embodiment of Kim such that it has a sealing member that is disposed between the cooling plate and the second housing and arranged to surround the flow path, as claimed, in order to better ensure that unwanted leakage is prevented due to the sealing member better ensuring a liquid sealed connection.
Regarding claim 17, the additional embodiment of Kim further teaches:
Wherein the sealing member (140) has a shape corresponding to a shape of the flow path (200) (Figs.5 and 8: 140 has a shape that corresponds to a shape of 200 due to 142 and 143 of 140- i.e., 142 and 143 of 140 has the same outline shape as 200 in order to seal 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment of Kim to further modify the device of modified Kim such that the sealing member has a shape corresponding to a shape of the flow path, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved sealing capabilities as outlined in claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kim further discloses:
Wherein the cooling plate (3012 and 3019 in combination) is made of metal ([0224] of Translation: 3012, which is a part of 3010 can be made out of metal).
However, the relied upon embodiment of Kim does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the first housing and the second housing are each made of non-metallic material.
Kim however presents another embodiment that teaches (Fig.1):
A housing (100) that can be made out of plastic/non-metallic material and/or metal ([0088] of Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional embodiment of Kim to modify the primary embodiment of Kim such that the first and second housing are each made of a non-metallic material, as claimed, in order to optimize manufacturing costs (i.e., reducing overall costs) since it is known that non-metallic materials such as plastic are generally cheaper than metals.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2018093195) in view of Suzuki (JP 2001308246).
Regarding claim 19, Kim does not disclose:
Wherein the first housing includes a plurality of holes formed around the flow path to discharge refrigerant leaking from the flow path to an outside.
Suzuki however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the first housing (1) includes a plurality of holes (7) formed around the flow path (2) to discharge refrigerant ([0023]: “cooling liquid”) leaking from the flow path (2) to an outside (Abstract: “liquid escape holes 7 communicating from the groove to the outside”) (See Abstract, [0027], and Fig.4: 7 is placed around 2 and discharges leaked cooling liquid/refrigerant to an outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Suzuki to modify the device of Kim such that the first housing includes a plurality of holes formed around the flow path to discharge refrigerant leaking from the flow path to an outside, as claimed, in order to provide an improved means of protecting the board from getting in contact with a liquid coolant in the event that the liquid coolant leaks due to the plurality of holes providing an efficient means of expelling the leaked coolant as taught by Suzuki ([0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses (Figs.15-18):
A converter comprising: a first housing (3011) including a flow path (3018); a second housing (3014) coupled to the first housing (3011); a board (3020) disposed between the first housing (3011) and the second housing (3014) (Figs.16-18 and [0231]: 3020 is between 3011 and 3014 so that 3020 can be placed on 3012 in the assembled state); a cooling plate (3012 and 3019 in combination) disposed between the board (3020) and the first housing (3011) (Figs.16-18: 3012 is between 3020 and the bottom surface of 3011 where 3013 is located).
However, Kim does not disclose:
A sealing member disposed between the cooling plate and the first housing, wherein the first housing includes a plurality of holes formed around the flow path to discharge refrigerant leaking from the flow path to an outside.
Suzuki however teaches (Figs.1-4):
A sealing member (9) disposed between the cooling plate (10) and the first housing (See Figure Below) ([0020]: “the second seal portion 9 is provided in the area sandwiched between the outer peripheral side of the groove 6 and the outer periphery of the heat dissipation substrate. 10”), wherein the first housing includes a plurality of holes (7) formed around the flow path (2) to discharge refrigerant ([0023]: “cooling liquid”) leaking from the flow path (2) to an outside (Abstract: “liquid escape holes 7 communicating from the groove to the outside”) (See Abstract, [0027], and Fig.4: 7 is placed around 2 and discharges leaked cooling liquid/refrigerant to an outside).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Suzuki to modify the device of Kim such that it has a sealing member that is disposed between the cooling plate and the first housing, and such that the first housing includes a plurality of holes formed around the flow path to discharge refrigerant leaking from the flow path to an outside, as claimed, in order to better ensure that unwanted leakage is prevented due to the sealing member better ensuring a liquid sealed connection, and thus optimizing the cooling efficiency, while also ensuring that the board is better protected from liquid damage caused by leaking coolant in the rare event that coolant leaks from the sealed connection due to the plurality of holes discharging the leaked coolant to the outside as taught by Suzuki ([0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon an allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and at least in part, because claim 9 recites the limitations: “wherein the grounding region is a portion protruded from the other surface of the base, and wherein a portion of the cooling plate is formed to be protruded from a side surface of the base”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 9, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 9, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The remaining prior art references teach other liquid cooling units for electronic devices including a converter. There are also prior art references that teach a cold plate or heat sink that provides grounding. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, even if there is a prior art reference or references that teach/teaches the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 9, the Office notes that there would be no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki such that it has the claimed grounding region as respectively claimed in claim 9. In other words, absent impermissible hindsight, there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki to arrive at the claimed device as respectively claimed in claim 9.
The Office also notes that in the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority filed in the Korean PCT Office on 03/17/2024 does not provide any prior art reference to reject the subject matter of claim 9 since the search opinion states that the instant application is in condition for allowance. In other words, the search opinion provides no prior art rejection for claim 9 since it states that the instant application is in condition for allowance.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 9 is believed to be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230273295: a printed circuit board with a ground pattern that is grounded through a heat sink.
US 20230008735: a cold plate that grounds a conductive component.
See next page→
US 20220298968: teaches a liquid cooling structure for a converter that utilizes seals that have thermally conductive fins.
US 20200335424: teaches a liquid cooler that has a sealing component and through hole that discharges liquid that leaks from a seal region.
US 20200077530: teaches a liquid cooling assembly for a converter.
US 20100091457: teaches plastic being generally cheaper than metal.
US 5727618: teaches plastic being generally cheaper than metal.
US 5343359: teaches a cold plate with a grounding terminal that grounds a printed circuit board.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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 (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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835