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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10, 12,14-15, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto (EP 0462552) in view of Sonoda (US 20050236147) and Cushman et al. (US 7,167,363).
Per claim 1 and 21, Komoto teaches a cooling structure, comprising: a flow path configuration member (7) forming a flow path through which a refrigerant flows,
wherein: the flow path includes a protrusion (73) that protrudes in a direction outside of the flow path from an inner wall (inside surface of 70) at an upstream side in a direction in which the refrigerant flows, and a rectifier (that rectifies the direction in which the refrigerant flows toward the protrusion; a cooling target (5) disposed on a part of an outer wall on a side of the flow path configuration member to directly or indirectly contact a wall of the flow path configuration member (see second annotated figure below of figure 2 of Komoto) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly directly or indirectly contact one another) at an upstream side of the protrusion and to directly or indirectly contact at least a part of a side wall of the protrusion (see annotated figure below) (to clarify, all elements of an assembly directly or indirectly contact one another) so that the cooling target can be cooled by refrigerant flowing through the protrusion (see figure 2 showing 5 disposed on the outer wall facing the inner wall of 73); an outer wall of the flow path configuration member (outer wall of 7), and a side of the flow path configuration member (7) opposite to the side on which the cooling target is disposed (side of 7 opposite of 5) but fails to explicitly teach the flow path configuration member being made of resin and a metal layer provided on the outer wall of the flow path configuration member on the side of the flow path configuration member opposite to the side on which the cooling target is disposed, wherein the metal layer includes zinc and is configured to shield a magnetic field generated from the cooling target (claim 1), wherein the metal layer is a zinc layer (claim 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the resin, Sonoda teaches a cooling structure including a flow path configuration member (131) made of resin (“he tubes 131 are made of a resin,”, para. 0032) for reduced weight and cost (para. 0043). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a flow path configuration member made of resin, as taught by Sonoda in the invention of Komoto, in order to advantageously reduce weight and cost (para. 0043).
Regarding the zinc layer, Cushman teaches a heat exchanging system including a metal layer (“zinc-plated”, col. 5, line 35) provided on an outer wall of a flow path configuration member (40) on a side of a flow path configuration member opposite to a side on which a cooling target (38) is disposed, wherein the metal layer includes zinc (“zinc-plated”, col. 5, line 35) and is configured to shield a magnetic field generated from the cooling target (“aids in shielding the circuit board 36 from electromagnetic interference (EMI) radiation”, col. 5, lines 35-37) for shielding electronic components from EMI (col. 5, lines 36-37). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a metal layer provided on an outer wall of a flow path configuration member on a side of a flow path configuration member opposite to a side on which a cooling target is disposed, wherein the metal layer includes zinc and is configured to shield a magnetic field generated from the cooling target, as taught by Cushman in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously shield electronic components of EMI (col. 5, lines 36-37), thereby inhibiting electronic malfunctions.
Per claim 2, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches wherein an end of the rectifier at a protrusion side protrudes from the inner wall at the upstream side in the direction outside of the flow path.
PNG
media_image3.png
236
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches wherein the protrusion (73) protrudes in the direction outside the flow path from the inner wall of the flow path downstream of the protrusion in the direction in which the refrigerant flows (see figures 1 and 2 of Komoto showing the flow going form 71 towards 72 and protrusion 73 protruding outside the flow path).
Per claim 8, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches the metal layer.
Further, in regards to the recitation “sprayed”, this limitation is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113 “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Since Komoto, as modified, teaches the metal layer, it appears that the product taught by Komoto, as modified, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitations of the claim.
Per claim 10, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 15, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 22-24, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 21. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches wherein the metal layer has an average thickness (there is necessarily an average thickness of the material since all materials have thickness) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the average thickness from 1um to 2mm (claim 22), 200um to 2mm (claim 23), and 500um to 2mm (claim 24).
However, one skilled in the art would know that material thickness is a determinative factor in heat transfer (Q=kA(T2-T1)/d; “d” is material thickness). Therefore the thickness of the metal layer is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the material thickness is adjusted the heat transfer of the metal layer will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the metal layer was disclosed in the prior art by Komoto, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of thickness by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the metal layer disclosed by Komoto, as modified, having an average thickness from 1um to 2mm (claim 22), 200um to 2mm (claim 23), and 500um to 2mm (claim 24).
Per claim 25-27, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches wherein the metal layer has an average thickness (there is necessarily an average thickness of the material since all materials have thickness) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the average thickness from 1um to 2mm (claim 25), 200um to 2mm (claim 26), and 500um to 2mm (claim 27).
However, one skilled in the art would know that material thickness is a determinative factor in heat transfer (Q=kA(T2-T1)/d; “d” is material thickness). Therefore the thickness of the metal layer is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the material thickness is adjusted the heat transfer of the metal layer will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the metal layer was disclosed in the prior art by Komoto, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of thickness by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the metal layer disclosed by Komoto, as modified, having an average thickness from 1um to 2mm (claim 25), 200um to 2mm (claim 26), and 500um to 2mm (claim 27).
Per claim 28, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling target includes a semiconductor (“LSI packages 5”) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cooling target is power semiconductor or capacitor.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known that electronic packages including power semiconductors and/or capacitors to need cooling to prevent overheating. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cooling system of Komoto, as modified, to provide the cooling system of Komoto, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent overheating and damage to power semiconductors and/or capacitors.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto (EP 0462552) in view of Sonoda (US 20050236147) and Cushman et al. (US 7,167,363) as applied to the claims above and further in view of McClintock (US 4,593,757).
Per claim 3, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Komoto, as modified, teaches a ratio (h/w) of a height of the rectifier in the direction outside the flow path, to a width of the flow path upstream of the protrusion in the direction outside the flow path but fails to explicitly teach ratio being 0.5 or more.
However, McClintock teaches that turbulent flow is generated by a geometry of the flow path and turbulent flow increase heat transfer efficiency (col. 3, lines 5-10). Therefore the ratio of the height to width is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the ratio is adjusted the turbulent flow will be adjusted and the heat transfer efficiency will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the ratio (h/w) was disclosed in the prior art by Komoto, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the ratio by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the ratio disclosed by Komoto, as modified, being 0.5 or more.
Per claim 9, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 11, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 8 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto (EP 0462552) in view of Sonoda (US 20050236147) and Cushman et al. (US 7,167,363) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Kluge (US 2010/0163210).
Per claim 19, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto (EP 0462552) in view of Sonoda (US 20050236147), Cushman et al. (US 7,167,363) and McClintock as applied to the claims above and further in view of and Kluge (US 2010/0163210).
Per claim 20, Komoto, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 29 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument on page 11 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, Sonoda was not cited to disclose the cooling structure including the flow path configuration member and cooling target. Sonoda was cited to disclose a cooling structure including a flow path configuration member (131) made of resin (“he tubes 131 are made of a resin,”, para. 0032) for reduced weight and cost (para. 0043). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763