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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation success for the proposed combination of Zeighami and Rops (Applicant’s remarks of 2/11/26, p. 13).
The Examiner believes that Applicant misunderstands the portion of Rops that is substituted into Zeighami. The Examiner is not substituting the entirety of Rops’ fig, 1, and is substituting only the vaporization chamber 5. Therefore, Applicant’s argument relevant to the supply channels 7 and its associated pressure drop are not relevant. As shown in Wan et al. (Experimental study and optimization of pin fin shapes in flow boiling of micro pin fin heat sinks), diamond shaped flow-modifying structures, the same shape as disclosed by Applicants has smallest pressure drop compared to other shaped that Wan studied, which allows for vaporization chamber of Rops to be replace the vaporization chamber of Zeighami and minimize the height of the liquid column of the cooling liquid needed to provide a pressure head for the coolant to flow through the vaporization chamber.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/11/26 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-1,5 and 18] based upon the references applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because:
Claim 1 recites "the flow-modifying structures modify a flow of the cooling liquid and the vapor while the cooling liquid and the vapor flow through said channels in said vaporization chamber in contact with said heat exchanging wall, and wherein the liquid slugs impinge on the flow-modifying structures thereby breaking up the liquid slugs". Hence, in claim 1, the flow-modifying structures obstruct the flow of the liquid, since the liquid impinges on the flow- modifying structures.
The inventors have surprisingly found that with a liquid head of 20 cm (a value within the range defined in current claim 1), the liquid head is 10 - 15 mbar, which very elegantly allows for a no-pump system in the vaporization chamber. Moreover, the inventors found that a pressure drop of 5 mbar/cm can be achieved, in an embodiment with staggered rows of pillars in the vaporization chamber. (See PG US2022/0028754, paragraph [0090].) Paragraph [0090] is reproduced here for reference:
[0090] For example, with a liquid head height of 20 cm, a static pressure difference of 10-15 mbar can be available, which very elegantly allows for a no-pump system if in the vaporization chambers pillars are used with a spacing of more than 0.2 mm, giving for a typical configuration with staggered rows of pillars and a 10 mm x 10 mm heat exchanging zone, a pressure drop of about 5 mbar, such that the liquid head can maintain the flow through the vaporization chamber. In a preferred embodiment, the vaporization chamber has a length of 1.0 mm to 20 mm, and the condenser is arranged at a height at least 10 cm or at least 20 cm, preferably less than 50 cm higher than the vaporization chamber, with respect to gravity.
The very low pressure drop achieved by the configuration recited in claim 1 is furthermore supported by the attached 1.132 declaration of the inventor. The inventor has carried out experiments showing that a pressure drop of 10 mbar/cm was achieved with the microchip cooling system disclosed in the instant application. As set out in the declaration, this pressure is at the lower end of the benchmark of Ma et al. that contains 3854 experimental data points collected from literature.
Reviewing the literature provided with the 1.132 declaration, Ma et al. (“Flow boiling frictional pressure drop inside micro/mini-channels: A new general model and experimental investigation”), the micro/mini-channels are linear micro-channels running longitudinal direction through the vaporization chamber, with majority of the data under laminar flow conditions. Whereas claim 1 of the instant application requires
“the vaporization chamber comprises . . . a plurality of flow-modifying structures . . . the flow-modifying structures are arranged in series in the flow direction of vaporization chamber, such that the flow-modifying structures modify a flow of the cooling liquid and the vapor while the cooling liquid and the vapor flow through said channels in said vaporization chamber in contact with said heat exchanging wall, and wherein the liquid slugs impinge on the flow-modifying structures thereby breaking up the liquid slugs, wherein the flow-modifying structures have a spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow-modifying structures of less than 0.5 mm.”
Having flow-modifying structures instead of longitudinal micro-channels presents very a vaporization chamber that has very different characteristics, including the pressure drop. In support of this, the Examiner presents Wan et al. (Experimental study and optimization of pin fin shapes in flow boiling of micro pin fin heat sinks). As stated in section 3,3 of this literature, “the smallest pressure drop can be noted for the diamond pin fins” in relation to other circular, square and streamline flow-modifying structures (see fig. 1). The diamond flow-modifying structures are disclosed having spacing of 0.5 mm (.92 mm - .4mm when rounded to 1 decimal place accuracy as being claimed of 0.5 mm). Therefore, the different geometries of the longitudinal micro-channels and flow-modifying structures contribute to significantly different flow characteristics and pressure drops. It is not a proper comparison to compare the pressure drop in longitudinal micro-channels of the Applicant’s cited literature to staggered rows of flow-modifying structures of the claimed invention presented by Applicant in the 1.132 declaration.
The evidence that would have to be probative and related to the claimed configuration, that the values provided of “a spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow-modifying structures of less than 0.5 mm,” ”a liquid column of the cooling liquid of at least 10 cm height” and “the condenser is spaced apart from the inlet of the vaporization chamber in vertical direction with respect to gravity by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm” are critical characteristics of the invention. See MPEP 2144.05 (III) where if a particular value or range is critical, that the claimed value or range achieves unexpected results. The 1.132 declaration fails to present a nexus between the evidence presented therein and the claimed invention. See MPEP 716.01(b).
Applicant argues
The very low pressure drop achieved by the configuration recited in claim 1 is furthermore supported by the attached 1.132 declaration of the inventor. The inventor has carried out experiments showing that a pressure drop of 10 mbar/cm was achieved with the microchip cooling system disclosed in the instant application. As set out in the declaration, this pressure is at the lower end of the benchmark of Ma et al. that contains 3854 experimental data points collected from literature.
First, no pressure drop is claimed in any of method claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 18, and 20. Second, while product dependent claim 12 claims “a pressure drop of about 5 mbar,” this cannot be a critical characteristic of the product (i.e., assembly) because it is not required by the invention because this requirement is presented in a dependent claim; and not the product independent claim 11.
Applicant in section 7 of the 1.132 declaration states that experiments have been carried out on a single microchip cooling system having the configuration of claim 1, which requires “a spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow modifying structures of less than 0.5 mm.” Para [0090] of the published application cited above, duplicates page 21, lines 23-31 of the originally filed specification. Based upon this portion of the written disclosure, the spacing between the pillars (i. e,, flow-modifying structures) is more than 0.2 mm (200 μm). However, the image of the vaporization chamber presented in figure 6C includes the pillars that are shown and described as “[t]he channels are e.g. 20 μm width” (Spec. p.28, l. 7) which is an order of magnitude smaller than the spacing between pillars that are described in para. [0090]. Because of this discrepancy, the Examiner questions the conditions that the pressure drop was measured. While the specification Applicant asserts that the spacing between the pillars (i. e,, flow-modifying structures) is more than 0.2 mm (200 μm, Spec. at p. 21, ll. 25-26), the image of the pillars in fig. 6C shows “[t]he channels are e.g. 20 μm width” (Spec. p.28, l. 7) which is one-tenth the size that supposedly that Applicant experimented on. It is noted that the description of fig. 6C is “an example cooling element according to the invention (Spec. p. 6, l. 14). (Also see now canceled claim 19 where Applicant was previously limiting each channel formed pairs of adjacent flow-modifying structures to have a width of less than 100μm).
If Applicant wishes for the Examiner to consider the results of their experiments, the actual test set-up along with the actual test results should be provided. The test set-up and results should correlate to the claimed invention(s).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Objections to the Claims, Specification and Drawings
There is a lack of correspondence between the claimed subject matter, the detailed written description, the summary of invention and the drawings as to
Claim 20 requires “the cooling element comprises a heat flow restriction to provide for thermal insulation between the heat exchanging wall of the vaporization chamber and the inlet plenum.” The specification states “[o]ptional heat flow restriction (19) is for instance a slot in the casing (20). The heat flow restriction (19) is for instance used to provide for thermal insulation between the heat exchanging wall (6) of the vaporization chamber (7) and the inlet plenum (13)” (Specification amendment dated 2/11/26). How can element 19 shown as a slot extending into the sidewall of the casing 20, but does not extend into either the vaporization chamber or the inlet plenum, provide thermal insulation between the vaporization chamber 7 (or the heat exchanging wall 6 of the vaporization chamber 7) and the inlet plenum 13? Note appears to be the same feature as shown as elements 13a, 13b, and 14 in Rops (US 8,475,626). In fact in Bullema (US 12,074,303), the heat exchanging wall 9 above the vaporization chamber 5 does not have heat flow restriction, but is shown extending into other elements. Also see element 19 of Rops (US 11,199,112).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the cooling element comprises a heat flow restriction to provide for thermal insulation between the heat exchanging wall of the vaporization chamber and the inlet plenum” (claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-15 are 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.
Claim 11, lines 28-29 requires “a liquid column of cooling.” Is “cooling” suppose to be “liquid cooling” that has antecedence in “a cooling liquid” of line 9?
Claim 12, line 4 requires “about 5 mbar.” What is the metes and bounds of “about 5 mbar?” When does the pressure drop meet about 5 mbar and when does the pressure drop not meet 5 mbar?
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeighami (US 6,704,200), Rops (US 8,475,626), Mahailovic (MEMS silicon-based micro evaporator, Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering; 21(7); 075007; 9 pages; doi:1 0.1088/0960-1317/21/7/075007; June 2011) and Satou (US 9,074,825).
With respect to Claim 1, Zeighami teaches a method of cooling a microchip (fig. 1, 12, col. 1, ll. 63-64, “semiconductor die” and col. 3, ll. 13-14, “semiconductor compatible element (e.g., silicon)”), said microchip comprises an integrated circuit (col. 3, l. 14, “die” and col. 1, l. 64, “semiconductor microprocessor”) and provided with a cooling system (12,16A,14,16B), wherein the cooling system comprises a cooling element (12) and the microchip is assembled (col. 3, ll. 13-14) with the cooling element, the cooling element comprises a vaporization chamber (18) comprising a heat exchanging wall (fig. 2, below 18s of 12), wherein the microchip is arranged adjacent to a first side (fig. 2, bottom of 12) of said heat exchanging wall, wherein the vaporization chamber comprises channels (18s), and wherein the cooling system further comprises a condenser (14) arranged vertically (col. 3, l. 50) spaced apart (see fig. 1, “H”) from and higher (see fig. 1) than the vaporization chamber, wherein the vaporization chamber comprises an inlet (29A) for a coolant (20) at a first side (fig. 1, at left side of 12) of the vaporization chamber and an outlet (29B) for the coolant at a second side (fig. 1, at right side of 12) of said vaporization chamber, wherein said first side of the vaporization chamber is opposite (see fig. 1) of the second side of the vaporization chamber, further wherein a length direction (fig. 2A, 30) of the vaporization chamber is from said inlet to said outlet, wherein the condenser (14) has an inlet (fig. 1, 14 at 16B) with a first connection (fig. 1, connection of 16B to 14) to the outlet (29B) of the vaporization chamber and has an outlet (fig. 1, 14 at 16A) with a second connection (fig. 1, connection of 16A to 14) to the inlet (29A) of the vaporization chamber for the coolant, wherein the method comprises providing the coolant in a liquid phase (20A) as a cooling liquid (20A) to said vaporization chamber in contact with a second side (fig. 2, bottom of 18s) of said heat exchanging wall, wherein said second side of said heat exchanging wall is opposite (see fig. 2) of said first side of said heat exchanging wall, such that heat is exchanged (col. 3, ll. 55-56) from said integrated circuit to said cooling liquid thereby at least partially vaporizing (col. 4, l. 2) said cooling liquid into a vapor (20B) of the coolant, wherein the vaporization chamber has a flow direction (fig. 2A, 30) for the coolant, further wherein at least the vapor flows up (24B) through said first connection to the condenser and is condensed (col. 4, l. 1) to form the cooling liquid (20A) in the condenser by heat exchange against air (22), wherein only the cooling liquid flows down (24A) through said second connection by a gravity flow (col. 4, l. 9), thereby driving (col. 4, ll. 3-4) transport of the cooling liquid through the vaporization chamber, and the cooling element (12) comprises an inlet plenum (fig. 3, 29A’) located between the inlet (fig. 1, 29A) and a place of initial heat exchanging (fig. 3, left side of 18’) contact between the microchip and the cooling liquid through said heat exchanging wall. . Zeighami fails to disclose the vaporization chamber comprises a plurality of flow-modifying structures, a formation of vapor bubbles of the coolant and liquid slugs of said coolant in said channels in said vaporization chamber, and wherein the flow-modifying structures are arranged in series in the flow direction of vaporization chamber, such that the flow-modifying structures modify a flow of the cooling liquid and the vapor while the cooling liquid and the vapor flow through said channels in said vaporization chamber in contact with said heat exchanging wall, and wherein the liquid slugs impinge on the flow-modifying structures thereby breaking up the liquid slugs; and a liquid column of the cooling liquid of at least 10 cm height, and wherein only the cooling liquid flows down from said one-way valve through said second connection by a gravity flow said one-way valve, wherein the condenser is spaced apart from the inlet of the vaporization chamber in vertical direction with respect to gravity by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm, wherein the vaporization chamber provides an evaporation volume having a cross-section, said cross-section begin substantially constant along a main flow path for the coolant in the vaporization chamber. Rops teaches the vaporization chamber (fig. 1, 5) comprises a plurality of flow-modifying structures (15), a formation of vapor bubbles (col. 4, l. 35) of the coolant and liquid slugs (col. 4, l. 35) of said coolant in said channels in said vaporization chamber, and wherein the flow-modifying structures are arranged in series (see figs. 4 and 5) in the flow direction (see fig. 6) of vaporization chamber, such that the flow-modifying structures modify (col. 5, ll. 31-34) a flow (col. 5, l. 26) of the cooling liquid (col. 5, l. 29) and the vapor (col. 5, l. 29) while the cooling liquid and the vapor flow through said channels in said vaporization chamber in contact with said heat exchanging wall, and wherein the liquid slugs impinge on the flow-modifying structures thereby breaking up (col. 5, l. 29) the liquid slugs and the cooling element (1) comprises an inlet plenum (6) located between the inlet (10) a place (fig. 3, upstream side of 8) of initial heat exchanging contact between the heat source (8) and the cooling liquid and “[t]he inlet manifold or inlet plenum 6 should be designed such that no vapor is retained therein” (col. 4, ll. 6-8) and the vaporization chamber provides an evaporation volume (figs. 1 and 6, volume of 5) having a cross-section (fig. 5, vertical cross-sections of 5), said cross-section be[ing] substantially constant (col. 4, ll. 5-6) along a main flow path (col. 5, l. 36, fig. 5, from just downstream of “pressure drop structure” to just upstream of “outlet plenum”) for the coolant in the vaporization chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vaporization chamber of Rops for the vaporization chamber of Zeighami for the purpose of “guaranteeing an evenly distributed layer of liquid on the surface of the pillars and thus an annular flow regime within the two phase evaporation zone” (col. 5, ll. 31-34) and for the purpose of “creat[ing] a pressure drop preventing vapor bubbles in the heat transfer area from travelling upstream into the inlet plenum” (col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 1). Zeighami and Rops fails to disclose the flow-modifying structures have a spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow-modifying structures of less than 0.5 mm. Mahailovic (cited by Applicant in their specification) teaches the flow-modifying structures (see fig. 3(d)) have a spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow-modifying structures of less than 0.5 mm (Table 1, Design type IV, Chennel width 20 μm – 60 μm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the spacing between neighboring pairs of the flow-modifying structures to be any value including less than 0.5 mm for “vapor bubbles by the connections between channels” (p. 4, 1st col., ll. 5-6), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Satou teaches the condenser (fig. 14, 104) has an outlet (bottom of 104) with a second connection (105b) through a one-way valve (106 and col. 14, l. 16) to the inlet (109) of the vaporization chamber (103) for the coolant (col. 14, l. 12) and a liquid column (column in 105b) of the cooling liquid (col. 16, l. 33) is maintained between (see fig. 14) the outlet of the condenser and an inlet (109) of the vaporization chamber, and wherein only (col. 14, ll. 16-18) the cooling liquid flows down (col. 16, ll. 39-40) from said one-way valve through said second connection by a gravity flow (col. 15, 22-23 opposite direction of upward arrow A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zeighami with the liquid column and the one-way valve of Satou for the purpose of “[t]he working fluid, which condenses and returns to liquid, accumulates at the lowest portion of heat dissipater 104” (col. 16, ll. 32-34) and “prevent[ing] backflow of the working fluid from heat receiver 103” (col 14, ll. 17-18). Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou fail to disclose a liquid column of the cooling liquid of at least 10 cm height is maintained in said second connection, and the condenser is spaced apart from the inlet of the vaporization chamber in vertical direction with respect to gravity by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the liquid column to be any height including a height of at least 10 cm so that “a pressure of water head difference from the fluid level of the working fluid to working fluid inlet 109 causes the working fluid staying on heat-receiving surface 103a to flow” (col. 15, ll. 7-9), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the condensation to be any height above including by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm than the inlet of the vaporization chamber that allows for a supply of condensed liquid to be continuously supplied to the vaporization chamber, since it has been held that where 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.
With respect to Claim 2, Zeighami discloses the claimed invention except for said vaporization chamber has a width direction and wherein each of said flow-modifying structures comprises: a first part wherein one of said channels for the coolant is divided into two of said channels for the coolant, wherein the two of said channels are separated in the width direction of the vaporization chamber, wherein the width direction is parallel to the heat exchanging wall and perpendicular to said length direction, and a second part, arranged downstream of the first part, wherein at least the two of said channels for the coolant are combined into a single channel for the coolant. Rops further teaches said vaporization chamber has a width direction (fig. 1, vertical axis of 5) and wherein each of said flow-modifying structures comprises: a first part (fig. 4, upstream portion of each 15) wherein one of said channels for the coolant is divided into two of said channels (see fig. 4) for the coolant, wherein the two of said channels are separated (see fig. 4) in the width direction of the vaporization chamber, wherein the width direction is parallel (see fig. 1) to the heat exchanging wall and perpendicular (see fig. 1) to said length direction, and a second part (fig. 4, downstream portion of each 15), arranged downstream of the first part, wherein at least the two of said channels for the coolant are combined into a single channel (see fig. 4) for the coolant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vaporization chamber of Rops for the vaporization chamber of Zeighami for the purpose of “guaranteeing an evenly distributed layer of liquid on the surface of the pillars and thus an annular flow regime within the two phase evaporation zone” (col. 5, ll. 31-34).
With respect to Claim 3, Zeighami discloses the claimed invention except for said flow-modifying structures are pillars extending perpendicular to said heat exchanging wall into said vaporization chamber, wherein the pillars are arranged in rows that are staggered, wherein said rows are distributed over said length direction of the vaporization chamber, wherein in each of said rows the pillars are distributed in a width direction transversal to said length direction, and wherein for a pair of said rows that are neighboring, the pillars have a different position in said width direction, such that the rows of the pillars are staggered. Rops teaches said flow-modifying structures (15s) are pillars (col. 4, l. 22) extending perpendicular (see fig. 6) to said heat exchanging wall into said vaporization chamber, wherein the pillars are arranged in rows (see fig. 4) that are staggered (see fig. 4), wherein said rows are distributed over (see fig. 4) said length direction of the vaporization chamber, wherein in each of said rows the pillars are distributed (see fig. 4) in a width direction (fig. 1, vertical axis of 5) transversal to said length direction, and wherein for a pair of said rows that are neighboring, the pillars have a different position (see fig. 4) in said width direction, such that the rows of the pillars are staggered (col. 4, l. 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vaporization chamber of Rops for the vaporization chamber of Zeighami for the purpose of “guaranteeing an evenly distributed layer of liquid on the surface of the pillars and thus an annular flow regime within the two phase evaporation zone” (col. 5, ll. 31-34).
With respect to Claim 5, Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for said microchip has a chip-level heat dissipation level of more than 1 kW/cm2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the chip-level heat dissipation level to be any value including more than 1 kW/cm2 that is needed to perform the intended application of the microchip, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 6, Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for said condenser operates at a condensation temperature of less than 70° C., and wherein said cooling liquid has, at the operating pressure of the vaporization chamber, a vaporization temperature of less than 70° C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the condensation and vaporization temperatures to be any value including less than 70° C that is selected to be less than the maximum rated operating temperature of the microchip, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 9, Zeighami further teaches transport of the vapor to the condenser and transport of the cooling liquid from the condenser to the vaporization chamber and transport of the coolant through the vaporization chamber is effected without (col. 2, l. 29) using a pump.
With respect to Claim 10, Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for the microchip simultaneously generates alternating current of at least 20 kHz to an antenna simultaneously with said cooling. Admitted prior art that it is well known in the art for a microchip generating alternating current of at least 20 kHz to an antenna (since the applicant’s transverse of the rejection does not specifically address the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the transverse is not adequate and is taken as admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou with well-known AC current of at least 20 kHz to an antenna allows for a microchip to provide a signal to broadcast in most broadcast bands including AM and FM radio while being cooled to insure reliable operation of the microchip.
With respect to Claim 18, Zeighami and Rops disclose the claimed invention except for the one-way valve is a check valve. Satou teaches the one-way valve is a check valve (col. 14, l. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zeighami with the one-way valve of Satou for the purpose of “prevent[ing] backflow of the working fluid from heat receiver 103” (col 14, ll. 17-18).
With respect to Claim 20 (as best understood), Zeighami discloses the claimed invention except for the cooling element comprises a heat flow restriction to provide for thermal insulation between the heat exchanging wall of the vaporization chamber and the inlet plenum. Rops teaches the cooling element (fig, 1, 1) comprises a heat flow restriction (figs. 1 and 2, 13a,13b,14) to provide for thermal insulation between the heat exchanging wall of the vaporization chamber and the inlet plenum (6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Zeighami with the heat flow restriction of Rops for the purpose of “prevent[ing] any liquid from prematurely evaporating within the channels of the supply structure 7” (col. 4, ll. 60-61).
Claims 11, 12, and 14, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeighami (US 6,704,200), Rops (US 8,475,626), and Satou (US 9,074,825).
With respect to Claim 11, Zeighami teaches a microchip cooling system assembly comprising a microchip (fig. 1, 12, col. 1, ll. 63-64, “semiconductor die” and col. 3, ll. 13-14, “semiconductor compatible element (e.g., silicon)” and col. 1, l. 64, “semiconductor microprocessor”) and a cooling system (12,16A,14,16B), wherein the cooling system comprises a cooling element (12) and a condenser (14), wherein the microchip comprises an integrated circuit (col. 3, l. 14, “die”), wherein the cooling element comprises a vaporization chamber (18) comprising a heat exchanging wall (fig. 2, below 18s of 12), wherein the microchip is arranged adjacent to a first side (fig. 2, bottom of 12) of said heat exchanging wall, wherein the condenser is arranged vertically above (col. 3, l. 50 and fig. 1, “H”) the vaporization chamber, wherein the heat exchanging wall is configured for, in operation (col 3, ll. 38-40), exchanging heat from said microchip to a cooling liquid (20A) that is provided in said vaporization chamber in contact with a second side (fig. 2, bottom of 18s) of said heat exchanging wall, wherein said second side of the heat exchanging wall is opposite (see fig. 2) of said first side of the heat exchanging wall, thereby at least partially vaporizing (col. 4, l. 2) said cooling liquid into a vapor (20B), wherein the vaporization chamber has a flow direction (fig. 2A, 30) for the cooling liquid and comprises channels (18s), wherein the vaporization chamber comprises an inlet (29A) for the cooling liquid (20) at a first side (fig. 1, at left side of 12) of the vaporization chamber, and an outlet (29B) for a fluid stream (20B) comprising the vapor (20B) at a second side (fig. 1, at right side of 12) of said vaporization chamber, wherein the first side of the vaporization chamber is opposite (see fig. 1) of the second side of the vaporization chamber, wherein the condenser (14) has an inlet (fig. 1, 14 at 16B) with a first connection (fig. 1, connection of 16B to 14) to the outlet (29B) for the fluid stream comprising the vapor and has an outlet (fig. 1, 14 at 16A) with a second connection (fig. 1, connection of 16A to 14) to the inlet (29A) of the vaporization chamber for the cooling liquid, and wherein the condenser is configured such that, in operation (col. 3, ll. 38-40), at least some of the vapor flows up through the first connection to the condenser and is condensed to form the cooling liquid in the condenser by heat exchange against ambient air (22), and wherein only the cooling liquid flows down (24A) f through the second connection by a gravity flow (col. 4, l. 9), thereby driving (col. 4, ll. 3-4) transport of the cooling liquid through the vaporization chamber, wherein the coolant is contained in a closed loop (see fig. 1) comprising the vaporization chamber, the condenser, the first connection and the second connection and is kept in motion (col. 4, l. 4) in said closed loop without (col. 2, l. 29) the use of a pump. Zeighami fails to disclose the vaporization chamber comprises a plurality of flow-modifying structures, the plurality of flow-modifying structures are arranged in series in the flow direction of the vaporization chamber and that are each configured for modifying a flow of the cooling liquid and the vapor while the cooling liquid and the vapor are in said vaporization chamber and in contact with said heat exchanging wall, wherein a liquid column of [the] cooling [liquid] is maintained in said connection of at least 10 cm in height, wherein only the cooling liquid flows down from the one-way valve through the second connection by a gravity flow, thereby driving transport of the cooling liquid through the vaporization chamber, wherein the condenser is spaced apart from the inlet of the vaporization chamber in a vertical direction with respect to gravity by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm, and wherein the vaporization chamber provides an evaporation volume having a cross-section, said cross-section being substantially consistent along a main flow path for the cooling liquid and the vapor in the vaporization chamber. Rops teaches the vaporization chamber (fig. 1, 5) comprises a plurality of flow-modifying structures (15), the plurality of flow-modifying structures are arranged in series (see figs. 4 and 5) in the flow direction (fig. 6) of the vaporization chamber and that are each configured for modifying (col. 5, ll. 31-34) a flow (col. 5, l. 26) of the cooling liquid (col. 5, l. 29) and the vapor (col. 5, l. 29) while the cooling liquid and the vapor are in said vaporization chamber and in contact with said heat exchanging wall and the vaporization chamber provides an evaporation volume (figs. 1 and 6, volume of 5) having a cross-section (fig. 5, vertical cross-sections of 5), said cross-section being substantially constant (col. 4, ll. 5-6) along a main flow path (col. 5, l. 36, fig. 5, from just downstream of “pressure drop structure” to just upstream of “outlet plenum”) for the coolant in the vaporization chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vaporization chamber of Rops for the vaporization chamber of Zeighami for the purpose of “guaranteeing an evenly distributed layer of liquid on the surface of the pillars and thus an annular flow regime within the two phase evaporation zone” (col. 5, ll. 31-34) and for the purpose of “creat[ing] a pressure drop preventing vapor bubbles in the heat transfer area from travelling upstream into the inlet plenum” (col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 1). Satou teaches the condenser (fig. 14, 104) has an outlet (bottom of 104) with a second connection (105b) through a one-way valve (106 and col. 14, l. 16) to the inlet (109) of the vaporization chamber (103) for the coolant liquid (col. 16, l. 33) and wherein a liquid column (column in 105b) of condensed cooling fluid (col. 16, l. 33) is maintained between (see fig. 14) the outlet of the condenser and an inlet (109) of the vaporization chamber, and wherein only (col. 14, ll. 16-18) the cooling liquid flows down (col. 16, ll. 39-40) from said one-way valve through said second connection by a gravity flow (col. 15, 22-23 opposite direction of upward arrow A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zeighami with the liquid column and the one-way valve of Satou for the purpose of “[t]he working fluid, which condenses and returns to liquid, accumulates at the lowest portion of heat dissipater 104” (col. 16, ll. 32-34) and “prevent[ing] backflow of the working fluid from heat receiver 103” (col 14, ll. 17-18). Zeighami, Rops, and Satou fail to disclose a liquid column of [the] cooling [liquid] of at least 10 cm height is maintained in said second connection, and the condenser is spaced apart from the inlet of the vaporization chamber in vertical direction with respect to gravity by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the liquid column to be any height including a height of at least 10 cm so that “a pressure of water head difference from the fluid level of the working fluid to working fluid inlet 109 causes the working fluid staying on heat-receiving surface 103a to flow” (col. 15, ll. 7-9), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the condensation to be any height above including by at least 10 cm to less than 50 cm than the inlet of the vaporization chamber that allows for a supply of condensed liquid to be continuously supplied to the vaporization chamber, since it has been held that where 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.
With respect to Claim 12, Zeighami discloses the claimed invention except for said flow-modifying structures extend perpendicular to said heat exchanging wall into said vaporization chamber and are provided as staggered rows of pillars. Rops teaches said flow-modifying structures (15) extend perpendicular (see fig. 6) to said heat exchanging wall into said vaporization chamber and are provided as staggered rows (see fig. 4) of pillars (col. 4, l. 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vaporization chamber of Rops for the vaporization chamber of Zeighami for the purpose of “guaranteeing an evenly distributed layer of liquid on the surface of the pillars and thus an annular flow regime within the two phase evaporation zone” (col. 5, ll. 31-34). Zeighami, Rops and Satou fail to disclose the flow-modifying structures are configured to provide a pressure drop of about 5 mbar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the pressure drop to be any value including about 5 mbar that allows the height of the liquid column to provide sufficient pressure for the coolant to flow through the vaporization chamber, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The mere presence of the requirement of “about 5 mbar” in a dependent claim is indicative that the pressure drop of about 5 mbar is not a critical characteristic of the invention.
With respect to Claim 14, Zeighami further teaches said microchip comprises a first part (12) made of a silicon material (col. 3, ll. 13-14) and said cooling element comprises a second part (24) made of a silicon material (col. 4, l. 16), wherein said first part in direct physical contact (see fig. 2) with said second part.
Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeighami (US 6,704,200), Rops (US 8,475,626), Mahailovic (MEMS silicon-based micro evaporator, Mems silicon-based micro evaporator; Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering; 21(7); 075007; 9 pages; doi:1 0.1088/0960-1317/21/7/075007; June 2011), Satou (US 9,074,825) and Malouin (WO 2018/085199 (citing reference to US 11,322,426)).
Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for the cooling liquid comprises NH3. Malouin teaches the cooling liquid comprises NH3 (col. 6, l. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cooling liquid of Malouin for the cooling liquid of Zeighami, Rops, Mahailovic and Satou for the purpose of providing a cooling liquid with a vaporization temperature to insure reliable operation of the integrated circuit.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeighami (US 6,704,200), Rops (US 8,475,626), Satou (US 9,074,825) and Malouin (WO 2018/085199 (citing reference to US 11,322,426)).
With respect to Claim 13, Zeighami, Rops and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for said microchip comprises an integrated circuit transmitter and/or receiver for wireless communication using electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of at least 24 GHz. Malouin teaches said microchip (110) comprises an integrated circuit transmitter (col. 1, ll. 25-26) and/or receiver (col. 1, ll. 25-26) for wireless communication using electromagnetic radiation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Zeighami, Rops and Satou with the microchip of Malouin to provide “a thermal management system that addressed these challenges by minimizing the conductive and convective thermal resistance in heat generating devices and reducing or eliminating the dependence on SWaP-constraining heat sinks, spreaders, and similar devices” (col. 2, ll. 4-9) that allow us of a higher powered microchip. Malouin fails to disclose a frequency of at least 24 GHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to for the frequency of the microchip to be any value including at least 24 GHz whose heat generating elements require the cooling arrangement of Malouin, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Note: Applicant has not provided any evidence that “a frequency of at least 24 GHz” is a critical characteristic of the invention.
With respect to Claim 15, Zeighami, Rops and Satou disclose the claimed invention except for said flow-modifying structures are monolithic with said heat exchanging wall and with a substrate of said microchip, and wherein the vaporization chamber comprises a cover plate which is assembled with the microchip. Malouin teaches said flow-modifying structures (fig. 14, 310) are monolithic with said heat exchanging wall (fig. 3, 100) and with a substrate (col. 4, l. 22) of said microchip (120), and wherein the vaporization chamber (210) comprises a cover plate (200) which is assembled with (see fig. 3) the microchip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Zeighami, Rops and Satou with the cooling element of Malouin to provide “a thermal management system that addressed these challenges by minimizing the conductive and convective thermal resistance in heat generating devices and reducing or eliminating the dependence on SWaP-constraining heat sinks, spreaders, and similar devices” (col. 2, ll. 4-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
RJH 2/23/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835