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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites that the cooler assembly is associated with pressure and temperature parameters that “meet or improve upon a second pressure parameter and a second temperature parameter of a legacy cooler assembly” and a form factor “equivalent to the legacy cooler assembly so as to function as a drop-in replacement for the legacy cooler assembly.” The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because the “legacy cooler assembly” is not defined by the claim or the specification with any particular structure, dimensions, or performance values; the claimed parameters and form factor are defined only relative to an unspecified external baseline that may vary arbitrarily. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given cooler assembly infringes, since the comparison depends entirely on the choice of “legacy” assembly. Clarification or amendment to recite definite structural or performance limitations is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
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.
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, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skalski US 2024/0373598 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski US 2024/0373598.
Re claim 1: Skalski discloses:
a cooler assembly comprising a cooling channel including an array of protrusions configured to transfer heat from a plurality of electronic modules to fluid flowing through the array of protrusions (coolant flow areas extending across the integrated circuit chips 410, 420 of power modules 340, each chip including a plurality of pin fins 430 mounted to the chip surface and positioned within the coolant flow to increase heat transfer surface area and fluid turbulence; figs. 6-7);
the plurality of electronic modules disposed along a longitudinal axis extending between an inlet and an outlet (plurality of power modules 340/840 arranged in a row, with coolant inlet 312/812 and coolant outlet 334, first channel 814 distributing coolant along the row of modules 840 including chips 850-860; figs. 3A, 4, 8);
and a distribution channel in fluid communication with the cooling channel via a venting system (integral coolant channels 314 formed in base plate 310 — first channel 336 fluidly coupled to coolant inlet 312 and second channel 341 fluidly coupled to coolant outlet 334 — communicating with the chip-crossing coolant flow areas through openings bounded by seals 342, 344 that contain and guide the flow from the channels across each module surface; figs. 4-5, 7), the distribution channel being configured to direct fluid entering at the inlet to flow through the cooling channel in a transverse direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis before exiting at the outlet (first channel 336/814 supplies coolant in parallel to a first edge 824 of each integrated circuit chip, the coolant flowing across each chip from the first edge 824 to the opposite second edge 826 — transverse to the module row — before being collected by the second channel 341 and directed to coolant outlet 334; figs. 7-8; paras. [0035], [0038]).
In the alternative, to the extent the seal-bounded openings between channels 314 and the module flow areas are not considered a “venting system,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide discrete vent openings between the supply/return channels and the module-crossing flow areas of Skalski, since Skalski expressly contemplates per-module discrete supply openings guided by seals 342A-342C to isolate each module’s coolant flow (paras. [0023], [0036]), and forming the channel-to-flow-area communication as discrete vents is a predictable implementation of that isolation.
Re claim 2: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1, wherein the distribution channel includes a barrier between a supply side that includes the inlet and a return side that includes the outlet (base plate 310 structure separating first channel 336 — coupled to coolant inlet 312 — from second channel 341 — coupled to coolant outlet 334 — within the integral coolant channels 314; figs. 4, 8); the venting system includes a supply vent network on the supply side and a return vent network on the return side, each extending a distance along the longitudinal axis that spans the plurality of electronic modules (first channel 336/814 supplying coolant in parallel through per-module openings to the first edge 824 of each chip across the full row — chips 850-860 — and second channel 341 collecting through corresponding openings at the second edges 826 along the row; figs. 5, 8; para. [0035]); and the barrier is configured to direct fluid entering the inlet to flow to the outlet via the supply vent network, the cooling channel, and the return vent network (coolant from inlet 312 is constrained to pass from first channel 336, through the per-module openings, across the pin-fin flow areas of each chip from first edge 824 to second edge 826, and into second channel 341 to outlet 334; figs. 7-8; para. [0038]).
In the alternative, to the extent the structure separating first channel 336 from second channel 341 is not considered “a barrier” within a single distribution channel, it would have been obvious to form Skalski’s supply and return channels as portions of a common distribution channel separated by a dividing barrier, since forming two adjacent passages either as separate channels or as one channel with a dividing wall is a predictable design choice involving the same structural elements performing the same flow-separating function, with the integral construction of channels 314 in a single base plate 310 already suggesting the common-channel implementation.
Re claim 8: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1, wherein the venting system includes a plurality of discrete slots disposed along the longitudinal axis and each aligned to the longitudinal axis (discrete per-module openings, bounded by seals 342A, 342B, 342C associated with respective power modules 340, disposed in succession along the module row; each opening extends along the first edge 824 of its chip, the chip edges running parallel to the longitudinal axis; figs. 5, 7-8; paras. [0035]-[0036]).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to form each per-module opening as an elongated slot extending parallel to the module row, since each opening must span the full first edge 824 of its respective chip to deliver coolant across the entire chip width (para. [0035]), and the chip edges extend parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Re claim 10: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1, wherein the array of protrusions includes an array of discrete protrusions configured to allow flow of fluid along the longitudinal axis and in the transverse direction (plurality of pin fins 430 — discrete, spaced pins positioned within the coolant flow, the gaps between discrete pins permitting fluid passage in any in-plane direction; figs. 6-7; para. [0037]).
Re claim 11: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 10, wherein each discrete protrusion has a rectangular shape, a rounded shape, or a wavy shape (pin fins 430 having a rounded shape; fig. 6); and the array of discrete protrusions is arranged in a grid pattern or a staggered grid pattern (pin fins 430 arranged in a staggered grid pattern of offset rows across each chip surface; fig. 6).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to arrange the pin fins in a grid or staggered grid, since Skalski expressly states the size, spacing, and geometry of the pin fin design may be modified based on desired cooling fluid performance (para. [0022]), and inline and staggered grids are the two conventional arrangements for pin-fin arrays, the staggered grid in particular increasing fluid turbulence — a purpose Skalski expressly ascribes to its pin fins (para. [0037]).
Re claim 13: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electronic modules includes power electronics for a plurality of phases of a DC to AC conversion circuit configured for use in an electric vehicle drivetrain (power modules 340 each including chips 410, 420 having at least one solid-state switch operable to convert DC power from traction battery 114 to AC power provided to electric machine 104; inverter 220 converting DC to three-phase AC via upper IGBTs 216 and lower IGBTs 218, each phase of electric machine 104 connected between an upper/lower transistor pair; electrified vehicle 100 with electric machines 104 connected to the drivetrain via transmission 106 and drive shaft 110; figs. 1-2; paras. [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0031], [0037]).
Re claim 21: Skalski discloses:
a cooler assembly comprising a cooling channel including an array of protrusions configured to transfer heat from a plurality of electronic modules to fluid flowing through the array of protrusions (coolant flow areas across chips 410, 420 of power modules 340, with pin fins 430 positioned within the coolant flow; figs. 6-7); the plurality of electronic modules disposed along a longitudinal axis extending between an inlet and an outlet (power modules 340/840 arranged in a row, with coolant inlet 312/812 and coolant outlet 334; figs. 3A, 4, 8); a distribution channel in fluid communication with the cooling channel via a venting system (integral coolant channels 314 in base plate 310, communicating with the chip-crossing flow areas through openings bounded by seals 342, 344; figs. 4-5, 7); the distribution channel including a barrier between a supply side including the inlet and a return side including the outlet (base plate 310 structure separating first channel 336 — coupled to inlet 312 — from second channel 341 — coupled to outlet 334; figs. 4, 8); the venting system including a supply vent network on the supply side and a return vent network on the return side, each extending along the longitudinal axis to span the plurality of electronic modules (first channel 336/814 supplying coolant in parallel through per-module openings to the first edge 824 of each chip of the plurality of modules — chips 850, 852, 854, 856, 858, 860 spanning the row — and second channel 341 collecting through corresponding openings at the second edges 826 along the row; figs. 5, 8; paras. [0035], [0038]).
In the alternative, to the extent Skalski is construed as having two discrete channels rather than one distribution channel divided by a barrier, it would have been obvious to form Skalski’s supply and return channels as portions of a common distribution channel separated by a dividing barrier, for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Re claim 22: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 21, wherein the barrier is configured to direct fluid entering the inlet to flow to the outlet via the supply vent network, through the cooling channel in a transverse direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and via the return vent network (coolant from inlet 312 passes from first channel 336 through the per-module openings, crosses each chip from first edge 824 to the opposite second edge 826 — transverse to the module row — and is collected by second channel 341 to outlet 334; figs. 7-8; paras. [0035], [0038]).
Claims 3, 4, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski in view of Cader US 10,582,640.
Re claim 3: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose the supply vents and return vents being interleaved — in Skalski, all supply openings are on one side of the module row and all return openings are on the other.
Cader discloses interleaving supply and return passages along a cooling channel (first side of the coolant channel 304-1 split into a plurality of segments alternately coupled to the input manifold 310-1 or the output manifold 310-2, such that the first side includes both a coolant supply and a coolant return; the second side 304-2 likewise split into alternating segments, the second side’s return corresponding to the first side’s supply and the second side’s supply corresponding to the first side’s return; paras. (51)-(52)).
It would have been obvious to interleave the supply vents and return vents of Skalski’s vent networks in Cader’s alternating arrangement, in order to feed each module region with coolant directly from the supply while preventing mixing with coolant warmed by a neighboring region (Cader’s isolated portions; Skalski para. [0023]). With the supply vents and return vents so interleaved along the longitudinal axis, the structure separating the supply side from the return side necessarily extends back and forth along the axis in a zigzag pattern, since it must pass around each alternating vent in turn — the claimed zigzag barrier being the geometric consequence of interleaving the supply and return connections while maintaining their separation.
Re claim 4: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose directing fluid to simultaneously flow through the cooling channel in both the transverse direction and an additional, opposite transverse direction — in Skalski, every module is crossed in the same direction (figs. 7-8).
Cader discloses directing fluid to simultaneously flow through a finned cooling channel in two opposite directions (baffle 440 dividing the heat plate bay into portions 302-1, 302-2; coolant crosses portion 302-1 in a first direction — from the first side of the coolant channel 304-1 to the second side 304-2 — while simultaneously crossing portion 302-2 in the opposite direction, enabled by each side channel containing both a supply segment coupled to input manifold 310-1 and a return segment coupled to output manifold 310-2; paras. (50)-(52), (60); figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to arrange Skalski’s per-module supply and return openings in Cader’s alternating pattern so that neighboring module regions are crossed in opposite transverse directions simultaneously, in order to supply each region with coolant received directly from the supply and prevent mixing with coolant already warmed by another region — the express goal of both references (Cader’s baffle-divided portions; Skalski para. [0023]). Both directions, as implemented in Skalski’s layout, are substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis along which the modules are disposed.
Re claim 23: Skalski in view of Cader renders obvious the cooler assembly of claim 21 wherein a plurality of vents from the supply vent network and from the return vent network are interleaved such that the barrier extends back and forth along the longitudinal axis in a zigzag pattern, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3 (Cader: alternating supply/return segments along each channel side, paras. (51)-(52); the zigzag barrier following as the geometric consequence of the interleaving).
Re claim 25: Skalski discloses:
a cooler assembly comprising a cooling channel including an array of protrusions configured to transfer heat from a plurality of electronic modules to fluid flowing through the array of protrusions (coolant flow areas across the chips 410, 420 of power modules 340, with pin fins 430 on each chip positioned within the coolant flow; figs. 6-7); the plurality of electronic modules disposed along a longitudinal axis extending between an inlet and an outlet (power modules 340/840 arranged in a row between coolant inlet 312/812 and coolant outlet 334; figs. 3A, 8); and a distribution channel in fluid communication with the cooling channel via a venting system (coolant channels 314 in base plate 310 — supply channel 336 from inlet 312, return channel 341 to outlet 334 — opening into the chip-crossing flow areas through seal-bounded openings 342, 344; figs. 4-5, 7), the fluid flowing through the cooling channel in a transverse direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis before exiting at the outlet (coolant crosses each chip from first edge 824 to second edge 826, perpendicular to the module row; figs. 7-8).
Skalski does not disclose directing fluid simultaneously in both a first transverse direction and a second, opposite transverse direction. In Skalski, every module is crossed in the same direction.
Cader discloses a finned cooling bay with simultaneous flow in two opposite directions (a baffle 440 divides the heat plate bay into portions 302-1 and 302-2; coolant crosses portion 302-1 in one direction and crosses portion 302-2 in the opposite direction at the same time, because each side channel 304-1, 304-2 contains both a supply segment and a return segment — one portion is fed from one side and drains to the other, while its neighbor is fed and drained in mirror image; paras. (50)-(52), (60); figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to arrange Skalski’s per-module supply and return openings in Cader’s alternating pattern, so that neighboring modules are crossed in opposite directions at the same time. The reason comes from the references themselves: both seek to give each module fresh coolant directly from the supply, never coolant pre-warmed by another module — Cader achieves this with its baffle-divided opposite-flowing portions, and Skalski states the same goal expressly (para. [0023]). Applying Cader’s known alternating arrangement to Skalski’s parallel networks yields the predictable result of bidirectional transverse cross-flow, the two directions being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as implemented in Skalski’s layout.
Re claim 26: Skalski in view of Cader discloses the cooler assembly of claim 25, but does not expressly disclose the array of protrusions including a series of planar fins disposed along the longitudinal axis and each aligned perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis. Skalski discloses pin fins 430 and expressly states that the size, spacing, and geometry of the pin fin design may be modified based on desired cooling fluid performance (para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to substitute planar fins — a known alternative to pin fins, the two being the conventional fin types in cold plate design — oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to channel the transverse flow of the combination, the substitution of one known fin configuration for another yielding the predictable result of directional flow guidance; planar fins so oriented inherently disallow flow of fluid along the longitudinal axis while allowing flow in the first and second transverse directions, the fins forming walls across the axial direction and open channels in the transverse directions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski.
Re claim 9: Skalski discloses the cooler assembly of claim 1 with an array of pin fins 430 (figs. 6-7), and expressly states that the size, spacing, and geometry of the pin fin design may be modified based on desired cooling fluid performance (para. [0022]). Skalski does not disclose the array of protrusions including a series of planar fins each aligned perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute planar fins for the pin fins of Skalski — planar fins and pin fins being the two conventional fin types in cold plate design and known alternatives to one another — oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to channel the existing transverse flow of Skalski (first edge 824 to second edge 826), the substitution of one known fin configuration for another yielding the predictable result of directional flow guidance. Planar fins so oriented inherently disallow flow of fluid along the longitudinal axis while allowing flow in the transverse direction, the fins forming walls across the axial direction and open channels in the transverse direction — a configuration further consonant with Skalski’s express goal of isolating each module’s coolant flow (para. [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 24, and 27 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 prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a set of flow control features on the return side of the barrier, the set of flow control features each configured to resist flow of fluid (claim 5), arranged to direct fluid at an equivalent flow rate for electronic modules warranting a same amount of cooling (claim 6), at different flow rates for modules warranting different amounts of cooling (claim 7), or to direct different amounts of fluid to different electronic modules (claim 24). While the prior art discloses parallel per-module supply networks and isolated flow portions, neither Skalski nor Cader teaches or suggests discrete flow-resisting features on the return side arranged to tune the flow rate allocated to individual modules.
The prior art of record likewise fails to teach or suggest the venting system including two supply vents and a return vent arranged such that fluid from the two supply vents flows in opposite transverse directions through a microchannel between two protrusions of the array of protrusions and exits the cooling channel through the return vent (claim 27). In Cader, each baffle-divided portion has its own supply and its own return; the prior art does not teach or suggest two supply flows converging from opposite directions within a microchannel between protrusions and exiting through a shared return vent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9,030,822 - a power module cooling system.
US 2014/0262177 - inverter power module packaging with cold plate
US 11,980,011 – cold plate
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGFU J FENG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 900am-530pm 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.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights