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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed 04/25/2024 is accepted, in which, claims 1, 4, and 6-8 are amended, and claims 10-13 are newly added. Claims 1 is independent with claims 1-13 awaiting an action on the merits as follows.
Specification
The specification is objected to for minor informalities.
Page 5 of the specification states, "Figure 3 is a bottom, schematic section view of the power module from Figure 1; Figure 3 is a bottom, schematic section view of a power module according to a second embodiment of the invention;" However, Figure 1 is prior art and Figure 4 is not mentioned. Examiner believes the specification should read, "Figure 3 is a bottom, schematic section view of the power module from Figure 2; Figure 4 is a bottom, schematic section view of a power module according to a second embodiment of the invention;" Proper correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, " an upper metallization (45) receiving the components (37) …" and "on the side opposite the components (37);" There is insufficient antecedent basis for the element, "the components." To further prosecution, Examiner will assume the claim should read, " an upper metallization (45) receiving the plurality of semiconductor-based power components (37) …" and "on the side opposite the plurality of semiconductor-based power components (37);" Proper correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, "a substrate (33) comprising an upper metallization (45) receiving the components (37) and a lower metallization (47) opposite to the upper metallization (45);" The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what "opposite" means for the lower metallization compared to the upper metallization since opposite means positioned on the other side of something.
Furthermore, claim 1 goes on to recite, "a metal structure (56) in direct contact with a lower surface (54) defined by a baseplate (49) fixed to the lower metallization (47) of the substrate (33) or by the lower metallization (47) of the substrate (33), on the side opposite the components (37);" There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the side," which Examiner assumes should have been introduced in the previous clause.
To further prosecution, Examiner will assume the claim should read, "a substrate (33) comprising an upper metallization (45) receiving the plurality of semiconductor-based power components (37) and a lower metallization (47) on a side opposite the plurality of semiconductor-based power components to the upper metallization (45);" This change would clarify the location of the upper and lower metallizations while also addressing the antecedent basis for "the side opposite the components." Proper correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, "a power module (31); a substrate (33); an upper metallization (45); a lower metallization (47); a baseplate (49); a lower surface; and at least one elongated sensor (58)." There is improper antecedent basis for these elements since they were all introduced in claim 1. Since claim 7 depends on claim 1, Examiner will assume claim 7 should read, "the power module (31); the substrate (33); the upper metallization (45); the lower metallization (47); the baseplate (49); the lower surface; and the at least one elongated sensor (58)."
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, "the components (37)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this element. To further prosecution, Examiner will assume the claim should read, "the semiconductor power components (37)." However, element number 37 is used in claim 1 for " a plurality of semiconductor-based power components," so it is unclear if the elements in claim 7 are new elements and require a new element number or if claim 7 should recite, "the plurality of semiconductor-based power components." Proper correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites, "a power module (31); a substrate (33); an upper metallization (45); a lower metallization (47); a baseplate (49); a lower surface; and at least one elongated sensor (58)." There is improper antecedent basis for these elements since they were all introduced in claim 1. Since claim 7 depends on claim 1, Examiner will assume claim 13 should read, "the power module (31); the substrate (33); the upper metallization (45); the lower metallization (47); the baseplate (49); the lower surface; and the at least one elongated sensor (58)."
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites, "the components (37)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this element. To further prosecution, Examiner will assume the claim should read, "the semiconductor power components (37)." However, element number 37 is used in claim 1 for " a plurality of semiconductor-based power components," so it is unclear if the elements in claim 13 are new elements and require a new element number or if claim 13 should recite, "the plurality of semiconductor-based power components." Proper correction is required.
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.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (US 20190237416 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a power module (31) (100, Fig 1) comprising:
- a plurality of semiconductor-based power components (37) (120/122);
- a substrate (33) (Sub: 110/126/124) comprising an upper metallization (45) (124) receiving the components (37) (120/122) and a lower metallization (47) (112) opposite (shown opposite) to the upper metallization (45) (124);
- a metal structure (56) (MS: 114/116) in direct contact (shown in direct contact) with a lower surface (54) (113B: bottom surface of 113) defined by a baseplate (49) (113) fixed (shown fixed) to the lower metallization (47) (112) of the substrate (33) (Sub) or by the lower metallization (47) of the substrate (33), on the side (bottom) opposite (shown opposite) the components (37) (120/122); and
- at least one elongated temperature sensor (58) (236, Fig 2), at least partially immersed (shown immersed) in the metal structure (56) (MS) and spreading parallel (shown spreading parallel) to the lower surface (54) (113B);
wherein the metal structure (56) (MS) is formed by electrodeposition (product by process; MPEP 2113.I, "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) on the lower surface (54) (113B) and the elongated sensor (58) (236).
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches the module of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the metal structure (56) (MS, Fig 1) is a plate (MSp: MS shown as a plate) spreading over (shown spreading over) at least one part of the lower surface (54) (113B), where
the plate (MSp) has a thickness (T: maximum thickness of MS measured in the vertical direction of Fig 1), measured perpendicular (shown perpendicular) to said lower surface (54) (113B), that is substantially constant (shown constant) over the spread thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches the module of claim 1 and goes on to teach wherein the metal structure (56) (MS, Fig 1) is a thermal radiator (Cu, [0035]; well known in the art o be a thermal radiator) spreading over (shown spreading over) at least a portion of the lower surface (54) (113B).
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 4-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 20190237416 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Raghavan (US 10446886 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Gao teaches the module of claims 1 and 2 and the elongated sensor (58) (236, Fig 2).
Gao fails to explicitly teach wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises an optical fiber (59), and in particular is a Bragg network optical fiber sensor or a Rayleigh backscattering optical fiber sensor.
However, Raghavan teaches wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises an optical fiber (59) (140, Fig 1A), and in particular is a Bragg network optical fiber sensor (Bragg optical fiber sensor, [Col 3, Ln 23-26]).
Gao and Raghavan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of devices with embedded temperature sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Gao with the features of Raghavan to create a power module wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises an optical fiber (59), and in particular is a Bragg network optical fiber sensor or a Rayleigh backscattering optical fiber sensor since optical sensing allows for incorporating multiple sensing elements on a single FO cable. Through multiplexing it is possible for one FO cable to carry the output light of multiple sensors. The sensors can be individually interrogated through time domain and/or wavelength domain multiplexing/demultiplexing (Raghavan, [Col 3, Ln 41-46]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the combination of Gao and Raghavan discloses the module of claims 4 and 10. Raghavan goes on to teach wherein each optical fiber (59) (140, Fig 1A) has an outer diameter below 100 µm (100 µm, [Col 9, Ln 7-8]) and has a suitable profile (allows adequate sealing so the cables do not degrade the system, [Col 9, Ln 8-9]) …
The combination fails to explicitly teach the optical fiber (59) has a radius of curvature less than or equal to 5 mm.
However, Raghavan teaches the transition portion of the fiber optic cable includes at least one bend, e.g., an S bend, wherein each bend in the bend has a radius less than about 90 degrees, or less than about 60 degrees or even less than about 45 degrees (Raghavan, [Col 5, Ln 1-5]). Raghavan goes on to teach the small bend provides a more stable configuration and reduces the risk of the fiber optic cable breaking (Raghavan, [Col 5, Ln 24-26]).
In regards to the radius of curvature of the optical cable, page 3 of the specification states, "Such a characteristic makes it possible to follow a highly curved contour with the optical fiber without generating internal stresses disrupting the signal, in order to optimize the path thereof on the lower surface and to measure the temperature of as many components as possible with the fiber."
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to design the radius of curvature of the optical cable to less than 5 mm in order to optimize the path of the cable while ensuring it doesn't crack or have the signal disrupted.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 20190237416 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Forsdike (US 20220298968 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Gao teaches the module of claim 1 and 2 and the elongated sensor (58) (236, Fig 2).
Gao fails to explicitly teach wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises at least one thermocouple.
However, Forsdike teaches wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises at least one thermocouple (thermocouple, [0134]).
Gao and Forsdike are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of embedding temperature sensors in metal to monitor electronics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Gao with the features of Forsdike to create a power module wherein each elongated sensor (58) comprises at least one thermocouple by embedding thermocouples for real time health monitoring of the unit (Forsdike, [0134]) because integrated thermal management features can protect the electrical components (Forsdike, [0007]).
Claims 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 20190237416 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kiel (US 20190333833 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Gao teaches the module of claims 1 and 2 and goes on to teach a fabrication method (method, [0076]),
where the method comprises the following steps:
- supplying a substrate (33) (Sub: 110/126/124) having an upper metallization (45) (124) intended to receive (shown receiving) semiconductor power components (37) (120/122) and
a lower metallization (47) (112) opposite (shown opposite) the upper metallization (124), and
optionally a baseplate (49) (113) attached (shown attached) to the lower metallization (112) of the substrate (Sub), where
the baseplate (49) (113) or the substrate has a lower surface (113: bottom surface of 113) opposite (shown opposite) the components (37) (120/122);
- placement of at least one elongated sensor (58) (236, Fig 2) on (shown on) the lower surface (54) (113B);
- formation of the metal structure (56) (MS) … on the lower surface (54) (113B) and on the elongated sensor (58) (236).
Gao fails to explicitly teach formation of the metal structure (56) by electrodeposition.
However, Kiel teaches formation of the metal structure (56) by electrodeposition (electrodeposition, [0036, 0048-0049]).
Gao and Kiel are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of power module devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Gao with the features of Kiel by formation of the metal structure by electrodeposition for cost reductions that are necessary for mass production and increased level of integration and compactness (Kiel, [0007]), and to achieve thermal equilibrium and guarantee the reliability of the power modules (Kiel, [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gao and Kiel discloses the method of claim 7. Gao goes on to teach wherein the metal structure (56) (MS, Fig 1) is a plate (MSp: MS shown as a plate) of substantially constant thickness (shown with constant thickness), where
the method further comprises a step of attachment of a radiator (53) (150) to the plate (Msp) on the side (113T: top surface of 113) opposite (shown opposite) the lower surface (54) (113B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 20190237416 A1), in view of Raghavan (US 10446886 B2), and further in view of Falcon (US 20190043822 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gao and Kiel discloses the method of claim 7. Gao teaches the lower surface (54) (113B) and goes on to teach wherein the metal structure (56) (MS, Fig 1) is a thermal radiator (Cu, [0035]; well known in the art o be a thermal radiator) in which each elongated sensor (58) (236) is at least in part immersed (shown immersed).
The combination fails to explicitly teach the method comprises the steps of: - preparation, in particular by additive fabrication, of a preform suited for shaping the thermal radiator; - placement of the preform on the lower surface (54) and, optionally, placement of a mask on a portion of the lower surface (54); and - subsequent to the formation of the metal structure (56), withdrawal of the preform and, as applicable, the mask.
However, Falcon teaches preparation, in particular by additive fabrication (additive fabrication, [0068]), of a preform (330, Fig 3) suited for shaping the thermal radiator.
Gao goes on to teach placement of the preform on (when combined, the preform of Falcon would be placed on the lower surface of Gao) the lower surface (54) (113B) and,
- subsequent to the formation of the metal structure (56), withdrawal (when combined, after Falcon forms the preform, Gao would remove the preform in order to continue manufacture of the module) of the preform.
Gao and Falcon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of die attachment devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Zeng with the features of Lee, Peng, and Jeong to create the method comprises the steps of: - preparation, in particular by additive fabrication, of a preform suited for shaping the thermal radiator; - placement of the preform on the lower surface (54) and, optionally, placement of a mask on a portion of the lower surface (54); and - subsequent to the formation of the metal structure (56), withdrawal of the preform and, as applicable, the mask because a single preform may advantageously be used to replace a plurality of individual contacts (Falcon, [Abs.]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matyushkin (US 20070258186 A1) - Wafer chuck with embedded optical temperature sensors
Rizza (US 20170064808 A1) - Power module with embedded temperature sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy D Watts whose telephone number is (703)756-1055. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00am-4:30pm, F 8:00-3pm 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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/JEREMY DANIEL WATTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights