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 (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano et al. (JP2016226096; IDS) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2011/0268593; IDS).
In claim 1, Shimano teaches (Fig. 1-7) an electric drive unit comprising: a motor assembly (3, 4, 21a, 21b) having a stator (3), a rotor (4) and an inverter (21a, 21b), the stator (3) having a plurality of windings (3a, 3b), the rotor (4) being rotatably disposed within the stator (3), the inverter (21a, 21b) having an inverter mount (24), a plurality of heat-sinked power semiconductors (22a, 22b, 25), the inverter mount (24) having a base that defines a plurality of semiconductor terminal apertures (corresponding to terminals illustrated in Fig, 7), each of the heat-sinked power semiconductors (22a, 22b, 25) having a power semiconductor (22a, 22b) and a heat sink (25), the power semiconductor (22a, 22b) having a body and a plurality of terminals (Fig. 7) that extend from the body, the heat sink (25) being fixedly and thermally coupled to the body of the power semiconductor (22a, 22b).
Shimano does not teach a plurality of seal members, wherein the terminals of each of the power semiconductors are received through a corresponding one of the seal members and through an associated set of the semiconductor terminal apertures, the seal members forming seals between the power semiconductor and the inverter mount that inhibits fluid flow through the semiconductor terminal apertures.
However Yamada teaches (Fig. 1-7) a drive unit wherein terminals (100) of each of the power semiconductors (22a, 22b) are received through a corresponding one of the seal members (50) and through an associated set of the semiconductor terminal apertures (62), the seal members (50) forming seals between the power semiconductor (22a, 22b) and the inverter mount (10) that inhibits fluid flow through the semiconductor terminal apertures (62).
Therefore in view of Yamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create improved coupling performance of the drive unit (Yamada; [0013]).
In claim 2, Shimano as modified teaches the drive unit of claim 1, with the exception of wherein each of the seal members is a discrete component.
However, Yamada further teaches wherein each of the seal members (50) is a discrete component (it is applied to each unit 15).
Therefore further in view of Yamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create improved coupling performance of the drive unit (Yamada; [0013]).
In claim 3, Shimano teaches the drive unit of claim 1, with the exception of wherein a plurality of the seal members are fixedly coupled to one another.
However, Yamada further teaches wherein a plurality of the seal members (50) are fixedly coupled to one another (via 10).
Therefore further in view of Yamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create improved coupling performance of the drive unit (Yamada; [0013]).
In claim 4, Shimano teaches the drive unit of claim 3, with the exception of wherein all of the seal members are fixedly coupled to one another.
However, However, Yamada further teaches wherein all of the seal members (50) are fixedly coupled to one another (via 10).
Therefore further in view of Yamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create improved coupling performance of the drive unit (Yamada; [0013]).
In claim 6, Shiman teaches the drive unit of claim 1, with the exception of wherein each of the seal members is disposed between the inverter mount and the body of an associated one of the power semiconductors.
However, Yamada further teaches wherein each of the seal members (50) is disposed between the inverter mount (60) and the body of an associated one of an electrical component (15).
Therefore further in view of Yamada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create improved coupling performance of the drive unit (Yamada; [0013]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano et al. (JP2016226096; IDS) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2011/0268593; IDS), and further in view of Urigami et al. (JP 2004214430; IDS).
In claim 5, Shimano teaches the drive unit of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the seal members are overmolded onto the inverter mount.
However, Urigami teaches (Fig. 1-3) wherein the seal members (25) are overmolded onto the device mount (1).
Therefore further in view of Urigami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to provide a circuit board which can avoid deformation when in use (Urigami; Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 7: “wherein the inverter mount defines a plurality of semiconductor recesses, wherein each set of terminal apertures intersects an associated one of the semiconductor recesses, and wherein each seal member is received in a corresponding one of the semiconductor recesses.”
Claim 8: “wherein each of the seal members is disposed on side of the inverter mount that is opposite the bodies of the power semiconductors.”
The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the prosecution period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshimatsu et al. (US 2023/0141875) teaches a cooler that is less likely to cause an uneven degree of cooling during cooling of multiple cooling targets.
Ikeda et al. (US 2011/0256002) teaches a drive circuit-integrated electric compressor, which is adapted to cool a power semiconductor element in a motor drive circuit with good efficiency without increasing the temperature of sucked refrigerant gas and while suppressing increase in pressure loss in a path for cooling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834