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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/8/2024, 4/6/2026 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the written description does not describe element 254 shown in Fig 2A.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/941558.
With respect to claim 12, claim 13 of the ‘558 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 16, claim 17 of the ‘558 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20170069365 – hereinafter, “Lee”).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches (In Fig 7) a system comprising a first cooling module (200 + 900) configured to extract heat from a power module (10), wherein the power module includes a printed circuit board (100 + 600) and a switching power device (300) embedded within the printed circuit board (See Fig 7), wherein the printed circuit board includes a plurality of conductive layers (120), and wherein each conductive layer of the plurality of conductive layers is electrically connected to the switching power device (“The first metal layer 120 formed on one surface of the dielectric layer 110 serves as a terminal and a wiring used for constructing a circuit through electrical contact with the semiconductor device”).
With respect to claim 13, Lee further teaches that the first cooling module (200 + 900) is directly attached to a first end of the printed circuit board (100 + 600, see Fig 7, “The radiating fin 200 may be formed directly on the surface of the second metal layer 130 of the substrate 100.”).
With respect to claim 14, Lee further teaches a second cooling module (Bottom 200 + 900, see Fig 7) configured to extract heat from the power module, wherein the second cooling module is directly attached to a second end (Bottom end) of the printed circuit board opposite to the first end (Top end) of the printed circuit board (See Fig 7).
With respect to method claims 16-18, the method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the device structure as taught by the Lee reference.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches (In Fig 7) a system comprising a power module (10); and a first cooling module (Top 200 + 900) configured to extract heat from the power module, wherein the power module includes: a printed circuit board (100 + 600); and a switching power device (300) embedded within the printed circuit board (See Fig 7), wherein the first cooling module is directly attached to a first end of the printed circuit board (200 + 900 is directly attached to 130, “The radiating fin 200 may be formed directly on the surface of the second metal layer 130 of the substrate 100.”).
Lee Fig 7 fails to specifically teach or suggest that the system comprises a power conversion unit.
Lee background, however, teaches a power module which is part of a power conversion unit (“Power modules, which are the core components of power converters Is a key technology in the field of environmentally friendly vehicles.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee background with that of Lee Fig 7 such that the power module of Lee Fig 7 is part of a power conversion unit, as taught by Lee background since doing so would provide functionality to the power module of Lee Fig 7.
With respect to claim 2, Lee further teaches that the power module further comprising: a copper layer (130, “The substrate 100 may be formed of a ceramic material as the dielectric layer 110 and a DBC substrate (direct bonded copper substrate) having a copper layer bonded to both surfaces of the dielectric layer 110.”) at the first end (Top end) of the printed circuit board, wherein the first cooling module is directly attached to the copper layer (See Fig 7, “The radiating fin 200 may be formed directly on the surface of the second metal layer 130 of the substrate 100.”).
With respect to claim 3, Lee further teaches a second cooling module (Bottom 900+200 in Fig 7) configured to extract heat from the power module, wherein the second cooling module is directly attached to a second end (Bottom end) of the printed circuit board opposite to the first end (Top end) of the printed circuit board (See Fig 7).
With respect to claim 5, Lee further teaches that the first cooling module and the second cooling module each include one or more cooling channels with a cooling medium (“A cooling water duct 900 for forming a cooling water channel is disposed on the first substrate and the second substrate on the second metal layer 130. One surface of the cooling water duct 900 is opened, The surface of the cooling fin 130 and the cooling fin 200 can be directly contacted with the cooling water.”).
With respect to claim 6, Lee further teaches wherein the printed circuit board includes a plurality of conductive layers (120), and wherein each conductive layer of the plurality of conductive layers is electrically connected to the switching power device (“The first metal layer 120 formed on one surface of the dielectric layer 110 serves as a terminal and a wiring used for constructing a circuit through electrical contact with the semiconductor device”).
With respect to claim 7, Lee further teaches that the printed circuit board includes one or more vias (500), and wherein the one or more vias and the plurality of conductive layers (120) are used for both electrical routing and thermal dissipation (“The semiconductor element 300 is electrically connected to the first and second substrates by using the first metal layer 120 and the solder 500”, where, in view of Fig 7, in order for the heat to move from 300 to 200, it must move through 120 and 500 so the layer 120 and via 500 provide both electrical routing and thermal dissipation, as claimed).
With respect to claim 9, Lee further teaches that the printed circuit board includes a plurality of conductive layers (120), and wherein each conductive layer of the plurality of conductive layers is electrically connected to the switching power device (“The first metal layer 120 formed on one surface of the dielectric layer 110 serves as a terminal and a wiring used for constructing a circuit through electrical contact with the semiconductor device”).
With respect to claim 10, Lee further teaches that the printed circuit board includes one or more vias (500), and wherein the one or more vias and the plurality of conductive layers (120) are used for both electrical routing and thermal dissipation (“The semiconductor element 300 is electrically connected to the first and second substrates by using the first metal layer 120 and the solder 500”, where, in view of Fig 7, in order for the heat to move from 300 to 200, it must move through 120 and 500 so the layer 120 and via 500 provide both electrical routing and thermal dissipation, as claimed).
With respect to claim 11, Lee Fig 7 as modified by Lee background teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Lee background further teaches/suggests a battery connected to the power conversion unit, and a motor configured to rotate based on power received from the power conversion unit, wherein the system is provided as a vehicle (“Power converters (for example, inverters), which are one of the key components of hybrid cars and electric vehicles, are a major component of eco-friendly vehicles, and many technologies have been developed. Power modules, which are the core components of power converters Is a key technology in the field of environmentally friendly vehicles.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee background with that of Lee Fig 7 such that Lee Fig 7 includes a battery connected to the power conversion unit, and a motor configured to rotate based on power received from the power conversion unit, wherein the system is provided as a vehicle, as taught by Lee background since doing so would provide functionality to the power module of Lee Fig 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Chen et al. (CN 209487260 – hereinafter, “Chen”).
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 3 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the first cooling module is encapsulated in a first epoxy mold and the second cooling module is encapsulated in a second epoxy mold.
Chen, however, teaches (In Figs 2-3) a cooling module (2) which is encapsulated in an epoxy mold (4, “the housing 1 is filled with silicon rubber or epoxy resin 4, so that the water cooling module 2 and the resistor module 3 is encapsulated”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with that of Lee such that, in Lee, the first cooling module is encapsulated in a first epoxy mold and the second cooling module is encapsulated in a second epoxy mold since doing so would provide additional mechanical protection to the cooling modules.
Claims 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Joseph (US 2023/0145148) and further in view of Denney, Jr. et al. (US 5,818,692 – hereinafter, “Denney”).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Lee further teaches that the first cooling module includes: a copper fin structure (200) attached to the printed circuit board (“The radiating fin 200 may be made of a material such as aluminum or copper having excellent thermal conductivity and may be bonded to the surface of the second metal layer 130 by a bonding technique such as ultrasonic welding.”), a cover (900) surrounding the copper fin structure (See Fig 7) and a fluid within the cover (“A cooling water duct 900 for forming a cooling water path is disposed in the direction of the second metal layer 130 of the substrate 100. One surface of the cooling water duct 900 is opened to open the surface of the second metal layer 130 and the cooling fin 200 Can directly contact the cooling water.”).
Lee fails to specifically teach or suggest that the cover is an epoxy mold cover and the fluid is a dielectric fluid.
Joseph, however, teaches a channel that is defined by an epoxy (¶0029, “a resin (e.g., epoxy) 198 that defines a cooling channel 200 between the cooling ports 176, 178.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joseph with that of Lee such that the channel cover which surrounds the copper fin structure of Lee is made of epoxy, as taught by Joseph, since doing so would provide for a cover which is made of a strong, light-weight material which is water resistant.
With respect to the limitations which require the fluid to be a dielectric fluid, Denney teaches a coolant which is a dielectric (Col. 4, ll. 17-18, “coolant fluid (not shown), which may be any coolant such as water, antifreeze or a dielectric coolant”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denney with that of Lee such that the fluid in Lee is a dielectric, as taught by Denney, since doing so would allow for the fluid of Lee to be electrically insulating.
Further it is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (In the instant case, the selection of an epoxy as the channel cover and the selection of a dielectric fluid as the coolant) supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 2971.
With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 14 as per above and further teaches wherein each of the first cooling module (Top 900 + 200) and the second cooling module (Bottom 900 + 200) includes: a copper fin structure (200) attached to the printed circuit board; a cover (900) surrounding the copper fin structure; and a fluid within the cover (“A cooling water duct 900 for forming a cooling water path is disposed in the direction of the second metal layer 130 of the substrate 100. One surface of the cooling water duct 900 is opened to open the surface of the second metal layer 130 and the cooling fin 200 Can directly contact the cooling water.”), wherein the printed circuit board includes one or more vias (500), and wherein the one or more vias and the plurality of conductive layers are used for both electrical routing and thermal dissipation (“The semiconductor element 300 is electrically connected to the first and second substrates by using the first metal layer 120 and the solder 500”, where, in view of Fig 7, in order for the heat to move from 300 to 200, it must move through 120 and 500 so the layer 120 and via 500 provide both electrical routing and thermal dissipation, as claimed).
Lee fails to specifically teach or suggest that the cover is an epoxy mold cover and the fluid is a dielectric fluid.
Joseph, however, teaches a channel that is defined by an epoxy (¶0029, “a resin (e.g., epoxy) 198 that defines a cooling channel 200 between the cooling ports 176, 178.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joseph with that of Lee such that the channel cover which surrounds the copper fin structure of Lee is made of epoxy, as taught by Joseph, since doing so would provide for a cover which is made of a strong, light-weight material which is water resistant.
With respect to the limitations which require the fluid to be a dielectric fluid, Denney teaches a coolant which is a dielectric (Col. 4, ll. 17-18, “coolant fluid (not shown), which may be any coolant such as water, antifreeze or a dielectric coolant”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denney with that of Lee such that the fluid in Lee is a dielectric, as taught by Denney, since doing so would allow for the fluid of Lee to be electrically insulating.
Further it is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (In the instant case, the selection of an epoxy as the channel cover and the selection of a dielectric fluid as the coolant) supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 2971.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Chen in view of Malouin et al. (US 2023/0284421 – hereinafter, “Malouin”) in view of Joseph and further in view of Denney.
With respect to claim 19, Lee further teaches extracting heat from the power module via a second cooling module (Bottom 900 + 200, see Fig 7); and directly attaching a fin structure (200) of the second cooling module to a second end (Bottom end) of the printed circuit board opposite to the first end (Top end, see Fig 7), wherein the first cooling module includes one or more cooling channels (Channels formed by 200 and 900) with a fluid (There is a fluid that flows within top 900) and wherein the second cooling module (Bottom module in Fig 7) includes: a cover (900) surrounding the fin structure; and a fluid within the cover (Bottom 900 has a fluid therein).
Lee fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the first cooling module is encapsulated in an epoxy mold and includes one or more cooling channels with a water-glycol fluid, and wherein the second cooling module includes: an epoxy mold cover; and the fluid within the cover is dielectric.
Chen, however, teaches (In Figs 2-3) a cooling module (2) which is encapsulated in an epoxy mold (4, “the housing 1 is filled with silicon rubber or epoxy resin 4, so that the water cooling module 2 and the resistor module 3 is encapsulated”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with that of Lee such that, in Lee, the first cooling module is encapsulated in a first epoxy mold and the second cooling module is encapsulated in a second epoxy mold since doing so would provide additional mechanical protection to the cooling modules.
With respect to the channels of the first cooling module including a water-glycol fluid, Malouin teaches a liquid coolant that includes water-glycol (¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Malouin with that of Lee such that the first liquid cooling module of Lee includes water-glycol, as taught by Malouin, since doing so would prevent the liquid coolant from freezing at some below freezing temperatures.
With respect to the limitations which require the second cooling module cover to be made of epoxy, Joseph teaches a channel that is defined by an epoxy (¶0029, “a resin (e.g., epoxy) 198 that defines a cooling channel 200 between the cooling ports 176, 178.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joseph with that of Lee such that the channel cover of the second cooling module which surrounds the copper fin structure of Lee is made of epoxy, as taught by Joseph, since doing so would provide for a cover which is made of a strong, light-weight material which is water resistant.
With respect to the limitations which require the fluid of the second cooling module to be a dielectric fluid, Denney teaches a coolant which is a dielectric (Col. 4, ll. 17-18, “coolant fluid (not shown), which may be any coolant such as water, antifreeze or a dielectric coolant”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denney with that of Lee such that the fluid in Lee is a dielectric, as taught by Denney, since doing so would allow for the fluid of Lee to be electrically insulating.
Further it is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (In the instant case, the selection of an epoxy as the channel cover, the selection of a water-glycol fluid as the coolant in the first cooling module, and the selection of a dielectric fluid as the coolant in the second cooling module) supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 2971.
With respect to claim 20, Lee further teaches that the printed circuit board includes one or more vias (500), and wherein the one or more vias and the plurality of conductive layers (120) are used for both electrical routing and thermal dissipation (“The semiconductor element 300 is electrically connected to the first and second substrates by using the first metal layer 120 and the solder 500”, where, in view of Fig 7, in order for the heat to move from 300 to 200, it must move through 120 and 500 so the layer 120 and via 500 provide both electrical routing and thermal dissipation, as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 MPEP 2144.07
