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 Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.6: the Office recommends amending “a shaped element” to recite “a projecting shaped element” so that there is consistent claim nomenclature for claims 1 and 6-8 (i.e., claim 1 is the only claim that utilizes “shaped element”, whereas claims 6-8 uses the limitation “projecting shaped element”).
Claim 1 Lns7-8: the clause “bears in a thermally conductive manner” should be amended to recite “bears in the thermally conductive manner” since lines 4-5 of the claim provide the antecedent basis for the claim limitation.
Claim 10 Ln.3: the clause “and an electrical system according to claim 1” should be amended to recite “and the electrical system according to claim 1” for antecedent reasons (i.e., since the claim is a linking claim that links to claim 1, the antecedent basis is already established).
See next page→
The Office requests that Applicant review the claims and correct all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rojahn (US 20180092255).
Regarding claim 1, Rojahn discloses (Fig.1):
An electrical system, comprising a bus bar (16), a housing element (11), and a heat-conducting element (31) which contacts the bus bar (16) in a thermally conductive manner (See Fig.1 and [0026]), wherein at least part of the housing element (11) comprising, on a side (upper side of 11) facing the bus bar (16), a shaped element (28) which projects from an outer extension plane (See Figure Below) and forms a contact surface (Fig.1: upper surface of 28) against which the heat-conducting element (31) bears in a thermally conductive manner (See Fig.1 and [0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
907
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
Regarding claim 2, Rojahn further discloses:
Wherein the heat-conducting element (31) is shaped three-dimensionally (See Fig.1: 31 has a three-dimensional shape).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255) in view of Sherrer (US 20140268625).
Regarding claim 3, Rojahn does not disclose:
Wherein the housing element comprises a material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 40 W/mk.
Sherrer however teaches:
A material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 40 W/mk ([0050]).
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 Sherrer to modify the device of Rojahn such that the housing element comprises a material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 40 W/mk, as claimed, in order to further optimize the heat dissipation capabilities due to the improved thermal conductivity of the housing element.
See next page→
Furthermore, modifying the material of the housing element such that it comprises a material with a desired thermal conductive, including as claimed (i.e., at least 40 W/mk), 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 achieve the improved heat dissipation capabilities as explained above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice, and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255) in view of Kaneko (US 20090262503).
Regarding claim 4, Rojahn does not disclose:
Wherein the heat-conducting element comprises a material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 3 W/mK.
Kaneko however teaches (Fig.2):
See next page→
Wherein the heat-conducting element (2) comprises a material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 3 W/mK ([0025]: "The heat radiation adhesive 14 has preferably thermal conductivity of 0.5 to 5 (W/mk)").
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 Kaneko to modify the device of Rojahn such that the heat-conducting element comprises a material that has a material which has a thermal conductivity of at least 3 W/mK, as claimed, in order to further optimize the heat transfer from the bus bar to the heat-conducting element due to the optimized thermal conductivity of the heat-conducting element.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255).
Regarding claim 5, Rojahn further discloses:
A distance (Fig.1: the distance between the top surface of 28 and the bottom surface of 16 in the connected state will define a "distance") between the bus bar (16) and the contact surface (Fig.1: upper surface of 28) of the projecting shaped element (28).
However, Rojahn does not disclose:
Wherein a distance between the bus bar and the contact surface of the projecting shaped element is a maximum of 3 mm.
However modifying the distance such that it has a desired distance, including as claimed (i.e., maximum of 3 mm), 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 further optimize the heat transfer from the bus bar to the heat-conducting element (30) of Rojahn due to the minimized distance between the bus bar and the contact surface of the projecting shaped element, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255) in view of Okajima (US 20090032295).
Regarding claim 6, Rojahn does not disclose:
Wherein the heat-conducting element bears with at least one protrusion element against an outer side surface of the projecting shaped element.
Okajima however teaches (Fig.1-1):
Wherein the heat-conducting element (10) bears with at least one protrusion element (See Figure Below) against an outer side surface (Fig.1-1: 10 is applied on the outer surface of 1 to fasten 1 to 11) of the projecting shaped element (1).
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
724
820
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 Okajima to modify the device of Rojahn such that the heat-conducting element has at least one protrusion element that bears against an outer side surface of the projecting shaped element, as claimed, in order to further improve the thermal contact between the shaped element and the heat-conducting element due to the increased contact area.
See next page→
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255) in view of Mariutiu (DE 202021106518).
Regarding claim 9, Rojahn does not disclose:
A converter, and wherein the housing element is a part of a housing of the converter.
Mariutiu however teaches (Fig.1):
A converter (1), and wherein the housing element (3 and/or 12) is a part of a housing (3 and 11-12) of the converter (1).
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 Mariutiu to modify the device of Rojahn such that it has a converter that is arranged such that the housing element is part of a housing of the converter, as claimed, in order to further optimize the capabilities of the electrical system of Rojahn (i.e., in addition to the functions of the control unit disclosed by Rojahn, the device will now have a converter that will now be able to perform additional functions such as controlling an electrical motor).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojahn (US 20180092255) in view of Liu (US 20210195808).
Regarding claim 10, Rojahn further discloses:
An electrical system according to claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1 above).
However, Rojahn does not disclose:
An electrical drive unit, comprising at least one electrical rotary machine and a power electronics system for controlling and/or supplying current to the electrical rotary machine, and an electrical system according to claim 1 as a component of the power electronics system.
Liu however teaches:
An electrical drive unit, comprising at least one electrical rotary machine ([0005]: “contains an electric motor/generator unit”) and a power electronics system ([0005]: “power electronics” and “The electronic PIM assembly”- the power electronics and PIM in combination will define the “power electronics system”) for controlling and/or supplying current to the electrical rotary machine ([0005]: “The electronic PIM assembly is utilized to control operation of the EDU's motor/generator unit(s)”).
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 Liu to modify the device of Rojahn such that it has an electrical drive unit that comprises at least one electrical rotary machine and a power electronics system for controlling and/or supplying current to the electrical rotary machine, and arranged in such a way that the electrical system of claim 1 is a component of the power electronics system, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved heat dissipation capabilities disclosed by Rojahn ([0004]) in an electrical vehicle taught by Liu ([0003]-[0005]).
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).
See next page→
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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 8 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 7, and at least in part, because claim 7 recites the limitations: “wherein the projecting shaped element is designed with a cavity which is open on the side facing the bus bar”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 7, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 7, 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.
As outlined below, the remaining prior art references teach other cooling structures similar to Applicant’s invention and/or teach other aspects relevant to the instant application. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are not believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations as respectively recited in claim 7. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Furthermore, the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority filed in the WIPO Office on 02/08/2024 also states that claim 7, which is equivalent to claim 7 of the instant application, is believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, claim 7 of the instant application is believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the English Translation of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority. The Office also notes that no other Office action is provided in the Global Dossier, and thus claim 7 is also believed to be in condition for allowance over all of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons provided above, the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 7 are believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11714468: teaches a TIM that has a thermal conductivity of 4 W/mk.
US 20220377946: teaches an electric drive unit that has a power electronics system and an electrical rotary machine.
CN 112928855: teaches an electric drive unit that drive an electrical rotary machine and a power electronics system.
US 20190380223: teaches a housing that is made out of cast iron.
See next page→
US 20190126773: teaches an EV that has an electrical drive unit and power electronics that drives an electrical rotary machine, and a cooling system for a power converter.
US 20160311462: teaches an electrical system for an electrical vehicle that has bus bar, gap pad, and an electrical rotary machine.
US 20150331460: teaches a TIM that has a thermal conductivity of 1-6 W/mk.
US 20150173254: teaches a power electronics system that can include a navigation system.
US 20140225482: teaches a heat dissipating system for an ECU.
DE 102013203498: teaches that a circuit barrier can be a busbar.
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 2841
Prosecution Insights