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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (WO 2025/247863 A1, hereinafter “Winkler”) in view of Lee (US 2021/0333157).
Claim 1: Winkler discloses a method for manufacturing a power module (Fig.1), the method comprising:
determining a plurality of electrical characteristics of each of a first power switch die (any 118 of Fig.1; see pgs.2 to 4, where the semiconductor elements are MOSFETs classified through final testing into “performance classes”, where “conduction losses and switching loss of a high-performance module are … significantly reduced”) and a second power switch die (any of the other 118), wherein the plurality of electrical characteristics includes at least: a conduction loss and a switching loss (see pg.4, first paragraph, where the performance classes are based on switching and conduction losses); and
manufacturing the power module using at least the first power switch die and the second power switch die based at least in part on the plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die (based on the performance classes determined in final testing, the power switch dies, i.e. semiconductor elements, are arranged on a cooler; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 11: Winkler discloses a power module (Fig.1) for a vehicle (see pg.4, 4th paragraph, which references a “battery-powered electric vehicle”) comprising:
a heatsink (100) including a coolant inlet (102) and a coolant outlet (104; see pg.5, 3rd paragraph); and
a power module (any of 112) affixed to the heatsink including at least a first power switch die (any of 118) and a second power switch die (another of 118) selected based at least in part on a plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die (based on the performance classes determined in final testing, the power switch dies, i.e. semiconductor elements, are arranged on a cooler; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 18: Winkler discloses a method for manufacturing a power module (Fig.1) for a vehicle (see pg.4, 4th paragraph, which references a “battery-powered electric vehicle”), the method comprising:
testing each of a first power switch die and a second power switch die to determine a plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die (see pg.3, last paragraph to pg.4, first paragraph, where the semiconductor elements are classified in a performance class according to final testing, where high performance modules correspond to less conduction and switching losses), wherein the plurality of electrical characteristics includes at least: a conduction loss and a switching loss (see pg.3, last paragraph to pg.4, first paragraph, where the semiconductor elements are classified in a performance class according to final testing, where high performance modules correspond to less conduction and switching losses); and
assembling at least one power module based at least in part on the plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die, wherein the at least one power module includes at least: the first power switch die and the second power switch die (based on the performance classes determined in final testing, the power switch dies, i.e. semiconductor elements, are arranged on a cooler; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph); and
manufacturing the power inverter including the at least one power module based at least in part on the plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die (shown in Fig.1, where the power modules are placed according to their performance class, which is based on conduction losses and switching losses; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph).
In addition to Winkler disclosing classifying the semiconductor elements according to performance class determined by conduction and switching losses, Winkler further discloses that “binning” (sorting) to sort semiconductor devices with comparable properties to optimize the performance of the parallel circuit is known in the art (see pg.2, second paragraph). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined individual conduction and switching loss characteristics, as later disclosed by Winkler and discussed above, as a part of the sorting method in determining performance classes of each semiconductor element.
Although Winkler discloses a “power module” used within an electric vehicle, Winkler does not specifically disclose that the power modules are a part of a “power inverter”, as required by the claim, although the examiner contends that it is implied that the power modules form an inverter on account of there being six elements per module, corresponding to the six transistors commonly utilized in a three-phase inverter of an electric vehicle (see Fig.1). Lee discloses that a similar power module may be provided within a power inverter to generate a three-phase alternating current power to drive a motor (see [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the power modules of Winkler within a power inverter, as is implied by Winkler, and disclosed by Lee in order to have provided three-phase alternating current to a vehicle motor.
Claim 2: Winkler discloses testing each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die to determine the plurality of electrical characteristics of each of the first power switch die and the second power switch die (shown in Fig.1, where the power modules are placed according to their performance class, which is based on conduction losses and switching losses; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph). In addition to Winkler disclosing classifying the semiconductor elements according to performance class determined by conduction and switching losses, Winkler further discloses that “binning” (sorting) to sort semiconductor devices with comparable properties to optimize the performance of the parallel circuit is known in the art (see pg.2, second paragraph). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined individual conduction and switching loss characteristics, as later disclosed by Winkler and discussed above, as a part of the sorting method in determining performance classes of each semiconductor element.
Claim 3: the combination discloses assembling at least one power module, wherein the at least one power module includes at least: the first power switch die and the second power switch die; and manufacturing the power inverter including the at least one power module (shown in Fig.1, where the power modules with semiconductor elements are assembled and the combined inverter is manufactured according to performance classes).
Claims 4 and 7: Winkler discloses classifying the semiconductor elements according to a performance class based on conduction and switching losses, as discussed above. However, Winkler does not explicitly disclose assembling the at least one power module, wherein a switching loss of the first power switch die is greater than or equal to a predetermined die switching loss threshold, and wherein a total switching loss of the first power switch die and the second power switch die is less than or equal to a predetermined total switching loss threshold or assembling the at least one power module, wherein a conduction loss of the first power switch die is greater than or equal to a predetermined die conduction loss threshold, wherein a conduction loss of the second power switch die is less than or equal to the predetermined die conduction loss threshold, and wherein a total conduction loss of the first power switch die and the second power switch die is less than or equal to a predetermined total conduction loss threshold. However, in pg.2, second paragraph, Winkler discloses that it is common in the art to sort semiconductor devices with comparable properties in a binning process. As Winkler requires determining performance classes based on conduction and switching losses, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the previously discussed binning process, sorting by thresholds of each of the conduction and switching losses, as a suitable process for determining the performance classes of each semiconductor element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined the performance classes of Winkler via conduction and/or switching loss thresholds, as part of the previously discussed binning process as a suitable means for providing performance classification.
Claim 8: Winkler does not explicitly disclose wherein assembling the at least one power module further comprises: comparing the conduction loss of the first power switch die to a predetermined die conduction loss threshold; comparing the conduction loss of the second power switch die to the predetermined die conduction loss threshold; procuring one or more additional power switch dies having a conduction loss less than or equal to the predetermined die conduction loss threshold in response to determining that the conduction loss of the first power switch die and the conduction loss of the second power switch die is greater than the predetermined die conduction loss threshold, wherein the one or more additional power switch dies are procured from one of a plurality of suppliers based at least in part on a stock status of each of the plurality of suppliers; and assembling the at least one power module using one or more of the additional power switch dies. However, in pg.2, second paragraph, Winkler discloses that it is common in the art to sort semiconductor devices with comparable properties in a binning process. As Winkler requires determining performance classes based on conduction and switching losses, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the previously discussed binning process, sorting by thresholds of each of the conduction and switching losses, as a suitable process for determining the performance classes of each semiconductor element, and to have procured additional dies to replace unsatisfactory and unclassifiable semiconductor elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined the performance classes of Winkler via conduction and/or switching loss thresholds, as part of the previously discussed binning process as a suitable means for providing performance classification and to have procured additional dies to replace unsatisfactory and unclassifiable semiconductor elements.
Claim 9: Winkler discloses determining a total power loss of the at least one power module based at least in part on the electrical characteristics of the first power switch die and the electrical characteristics of the second power switch die (performance class, which is based on total power loss, equivalent to the sum of the conductive loss and switching loss); and affixing the at least one power module to a heatsink based at least in part on the total power loss of the at least one power module (shown in Fig.1, where the power modules are placed according to their performance class, which is based on conduction losses and switching losses; see pgs.3-4 and pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 10: Winkler discloses wherein affixing the at least one power module to the heatsink further comprises: determining an optimal affixment location of the at least one power module on the heatsink relative to a coolant inlet of the heatsink and a coolant outlet of the heatsink, wherein a distance between the coolant inlet and the optimal affixment location is negatively correlated with the total power loss of the at least one power module (see pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 12: Winkler discloses wherein the plurality of electrical characteristics includes at least a power loss, wherein the power loss is a sum of a switching loss and a conduction loss (see discussion above, where Winkler discloses the performance class based on conduction and switching losses, the sum of which are total power losses), and wherein a total power loss of the first power switch die of the power module and the second power switch die of the power module is less than or equal to a predetermined total power loss threshold (e.g. the high-performance class having less total loss; see pg.4, 1st through 2nd paragraphs).
Claim 16: Winkler discloses wherein the power module is affixed to the heatsink at an optimal affixment location relative to the coolant inlet based at least in part on a total power loss of the power module (see pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Claim 17: Winkler discloses wherein a distance between the coolant inlet and the optimal affixment location is negatively correlated with the total power loss of the power module (see pg.5, 4th paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 13-15, and 19-20 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 does not clearly disclose within the overall context of the claims “assembling the at least one power module, wherein the at least one power module further includes a first gate driver for controlling the first power switch die and a second gate driver for controlling the second power switch die; configuring the first gate driver to control the first power switch die with a first switching slew rate; and configuring the second gate driver to control the second power switch die with a second switching slew rate, wherein the second switching slew rate is less than the first switching slew rate” of claim 5 and similar limitations of claims 13 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights