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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
No Claims are withdrawn (due to amendment) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/25/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 2/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden. This is not found persuasive because the original claims met the test for a burden as outlined in the MPEP and applicant has not provided evidence that those claims would have no burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/24 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 § 112
Claim 17 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.
The term “corrosion resistant material” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corrosion resistant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art would not know what material or requirement this would read on as the specification provides no value of the “corrosion resistance” or specify material reading on this. The claim will be examined as any metal reading on this as this is the only material requirement in applicants’ specification.
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)(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0302458).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches a cooling device (element 15) for cooling a power module (element 114, understood by one in the art to be an electronic), comprising: a base (element 315); a cover (element 315c); cooling channels (elements 15d) between the base and the cover of the cooling device (per fig. 35), wherein the cooling channels are arranged such that a cooling medium (para. 0167 “refrigerant”) can flow in the cooling channels (per fig. 35, para. 0167), wherein the base and/or the cover are/is a metallic surface (para. 0167 “aluminum”) for thermal connection to the power module (per fig. 35), wherein side walls of the cooling channels are formed by ribs (elements 315a) and define a usual course of each of the cooling channels (per fig. 35), wherein the cooling channels and ribs extend in a first direction (per fig. 35, left-right); wherein the ribs have, at predefined positions, local deflections (elements 215e), wherein the local deflections deflect from the usual course of the cooling channel in question (per fig. 35), such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective local deflection (para. 0167 “stir”).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo teaches the cooling device has at least two substantially parallel cooling channels (per fig. 35 there are many 15d), wherein each rib has, at predefined positions, the local deflections (elements 215e per fig. 35) from the usual course of the cooling channel in question such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective deflection (per fig. 35 and para. 0167).
Regarding claim 3, Kubo teaches the local deflections of adjacent ribs are arranged offset with respect to one another in the direction of the usual course of the cooling channel in question (per fig. 35, elements 215e are offset as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo teaches the local deflections are formed by parts of the ribs which are set obliquely to the usual course of the respective cooling channel (per fig. 35).
Regarding claim 8, Kubo teaches the cover is mounted on the base and/or on the ribs (per fig. 35).
Regarding claim 13, Kubo teaches each rib having the local deflections includes a pair of local deflections (per fig. 35, each has multiple deflection thus reading on the limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Kubo teaches the cooling channels and the ribs extend in a longitudinal direction (per fig. 35, left-right), and the ribs are arranged laterally adjacent (per fig. 35, up-down), wherein the local deflections for a given rib are offset in the longitudinal direction relative to each laterally adjacent rib (per fig. 35 elements 215e are offset).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0302458).
Regarding claim 10, Kubo does not expressly teach wherein the base and the ribs are produced as an extruded profile, wherein the local deflections from the usual course of the cooling channel in question are then introduced into the ribs at the predefined positions. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo does not expressly teach the local deflections from the usual course of the cooling channel in question are introduced into the ribs by forming parts of the ribs at the predefined positions. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo does not expressly teach the cover is welded to the base and/or the ribs after the local deflections have been introduced. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 18, Kubo there are no additional deflection grids or additional plates in the profile of the cooling channels does not expressly teach the cover is welded to the base. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 19, Kubo teaches there are no additional deflection grids or additional plates in the profile of the cooling channels (per fig. 35). Kubo does not teach the local deflections are produced by mechanical working of the ribs. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisano et al. (U.S. PGPub 2004/0008487) in view of Kubo et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0302458).
Regarding claim 1, Hisano teaches a cooling device (element 1) for cooling a power module (element 7, understood by one in the art to be a power module), comprising: a base (bottom of element 1); a cover (top of element 1); cooling channels (spaces between elements 21) between the base and the cover of the cooling device (per fig. 3A-3B; per paragraph 0034 this is a “watertight” structure thus reads on the claimed cooling device), wherein the cooling channels are arranged such that a cooling medium (para. 0036 “coolant”) can flow in the cooling channels (per fig. 3A-3C, para. 0036-0037), wherein the base and/or the cover are/is thermal connection to the power module (per fig. 3B-3C), wherein side walls of the cooling channels are formed by ribs (elements 21, fins may reasonably be considered “ribs”) and define a usual course of each of the cooling channels (per fig. 3A), wherein the cooling channels and ribs extend in a first direction (per fig. 3A, treating any of section 11/13/15 individually).
Hisano does not teach wherein the base and/or the cover are/is a metallic surface (para. 0167 “aluminum”) and wherein the ribs have, at predefined positions, local deflections (elements 215e), wherein the local deflections deflect from the usual course of the cooling channel in question (per fig. 35), such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective local deflection (para. 0167 “stir”). Kubo teaches the base and/or the cover are/is a metallic surface (para. 0167 “aluminum”) and wherein the ribs have, at predefined positions, local deflections (elements 215e), wherein the local deflections deflect from the usual course of the cooling channel in question (per fig. 35), such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective local deflection (para. 0167 “stir”). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hisano to include the material of Kubo, the motivation would be the well-known thermal transfer of taught metal. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hisano to include the deflections of Kubo as claimed, the motivation would be to cause turbulence which is known to improve heat transfer ( para. 0009, 0110).
Regarding claim 2, Hisano teaches the cooling device has at least two substantially parallel cooling channels (per fig. 3A there are many).
Hisano does not teach wherein each rib has, at predefined positions, the local deflections from the usual course of the cooling channel in question such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective deflection. Kubo further teaches each rib has, at predefined positions, the local deflections (elements 215e per fig. 35) from the usual course of the cooling channel in question such that turbulent flow of the cooling medium occurs locally at the respective deflection (per fig. 35 and para. 0167). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hisano to include the deflections of Kubo as claimed, the motivation would be to cause turbulence which is known to improve heat transfer ( para. 0009, 0110).
Regarding claim 3, Hisano does not teach the local deflections of adjacent ribs are arranged offset with respect to one another in the direction of the usual course of the cooling channel in question.
Kubo teaches the local deflections of adjacent ribs are arranged offset with respect to one another in the direction of the usual course of the cooling channel in question (per fig. 35, elements 215e are offset as claimed). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hisano to include the deflections of Kubo as claimed, the motivation would be to cause turbulence which is known to improve heat transfer ( para. 0009, 0110).
Regarding claim 4, Hisano alone does not teach the local deflections of each nth rib are in the same position in the direction of the usual course of the cooling channel in question, wherein n is greater than two. Kubo teaches the deflections ribs offset next to each other, over the number of ribs of Hisano it would have been obvious for the deflections to be in the same position of nth rib (where n is greater than 3, which reads on the limitation as written), the motivation would be to cause turbulence which is known to improve heat transfer ( para. 0009, 0110).
Regarding claim 6, Hisano teaches the ribs are formed on the base of the cooling device (per fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Hisano does not expressly teach the base with the ribs is formed by an extruded profile. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Hisano teaches the cooling device has two connections for entry and exit of the cooling medium into/from the cooling channels (elements 19 and 23).
Regarding claim 10, Hisano and Kubo do not expressly teach wherein the base and the ribs are produced as an extruded profile, wherein the local deflections from the usual course of the cooling channel in question are then introduced into the ribs at the predefined positions. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 11, Hisano and Kubo do not expressly teach the local deflections from the usual course of the cooling channel in question are introduced into the ribs by forming parts of the ribs at the predefined positions. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Hisano and Kubo do not expressly teach the cover is welded to the base and/or the ribs after the local deflections have been introduced. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 15, Hisano alone does not teach the local deflections of each third rib are at the same position in the direction of the usual course of the cooling channel in question. Kubo teaches the deflections ribs offset in groups of three (per fig. 35), it would have been obvious for the deflections when applied to Hisano to be in the same group of three taught thus reading on the claim limitation, the motivation would be to cause turbulence which is known to improve heat transfer ( para. 0009, 0110).
Regarding claim 16, Hisano does not expressly teach the ribs are formed integrally with the base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the base and ribs, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)
Regarding claim 17. (Previously Presented) The cooling device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the ribs are formed integrally with the base, wherein the base with the ribs is formed from a corrosion resistant material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the base and ribs, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). As stated above in for claim 1 Kubo teaches the structure being metal. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Hisano to include the material of Kubo, the motivation would be the well-known thermal transfer of taught metal.
Regarding claim 18, Hisano and Kubo do not expressly teach the cover is welded to the base. In product-by-process claims, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hisano and Kubo teaches there are no additional deflection grids or additional plates in the profile of the cooling channels (as neither include such). They do not expressly teach the local deflections are produced by mechanical working of the ribs. In product-by-process claim limitation, as in this claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
