1DETAILED 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part” (claim 1) is considered to be new matter. The originally filed specification, claims, and drawings have support for each of the side wall parts protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part and the end side of the two top wall parts, but do not teach the each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part. As such, the limitations are deemed to be new matter.
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 1, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part”, wherein it is unclear how “only” is a term in the claim since the claim also recites “a top wall part protruding from an end side of a tip part of the side wall part toward another heat dissipating piece of the two heat dissipating pieces”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain how two walls connected at a joint/connection point only protrude in one direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would look the specification and drawings to see that the “a top wall part” and the “side wall part” are connected to each other a respectively protrude from each other at the connection depending along which direction along the heat sink is considered the relative direction. How do two parts which are connected only protrude (take up space) in one direction when by nature of being connected there must be a protrusion in both directions since there are two wall parts? What is attempting to be claimed by the limitation “only protrudes from”? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- each of the side wall parts extends from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part and the end side of the top wall part -- for clarity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected, as best understood due to indefiniteness issues, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakase et al. US 6,109,340.
Re claim 1, Nakase et al. teach a heat sink comprising: a base part (6) of which one side surface serves as an electronic component contact surface and an opposite side surface as a heat dissipating surface (abstract, figs, cols 3-4);
and two heat dissipating pieces (annotated fig) provided on one end side and an other end side of the base part in a direction in which the heat dissipating surface continues in the base part (noting extending along opposite longitudinal sides),
wherein each of the two heat dissipating pieces has a side wall part (noting any of there non angled side walls meet the claim limitations ) protruding from the heat dissipating surface (base of fins) along the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part (noting all the three dimensional parts are extending along the other parts to a certain extent) and a top wall part (top flat surface) protruding from an end side of a tip side part (sharp corners of top of the fin(s)) of the side wall part toward an other heat dissipating piece of the two heat dissipating pieces (noting the top horizontal planes extends in two directions towards all other pieces of the heat sink) and ensuring an inner space (channels in-between adjacent 8) between the top wall part and the heat dissipating surface,
each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part ( fig 2 teach “each of the side wall parts extends from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part and the end side of the top wall part”; additionally noting that one of ordinary skill in the would interpret “each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part” to be taught by fig 2, since the walls of fins extending from the base supporting the fins would only be considered to protrude from the base holding/supporting the fins ),
two of the top wall parts are separated such that a ventilation path causing the inner space and an outer space to communicate with each other is ensured therebetween, the ventilation path includes a slit part (annotated fig) positioned between the two top wall parts in a plane (noting multiple horizontal planes are present stacked in the vertical direction which mee the claim limitations along the height of the fins) in which the two top wall parts extend, and the ventilation path includes a penetrating part, extending from the slit part, which has a penetrating hole shape (figs noting the bordering of a hole/circle) across the two top wall parts in the plane in which the two top wall parts extend, and a width larger than the slit part (figs).
Noting “a slit part positioned between the two top wall parts in a plane in which the two top wall parts extend, and the ventilation path includes a penetrating part, extending from the slit part, which has a penetrating hole shape across the two top wall parts in the plane in which the two top wall parts extend, and a width larger than the slit part” is interpreted broadly, since one of ordinary skill in the art would view to the instant application to observe that the “a penetrating part” is more of a portion of the already claimed “top wall part” which touches “a penetrating hole”, and therefore not an additional part but the border of the already claimed part and the hole (para 32-34 spec instant application); since the “part” appears to be more of a lack of a part which forms open space/a hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 15, Nishihara et al. teach an electronic component package (fig 7, claim 1, 148, 150) using the heat sink according to any one of claim 1, wherein an electronic component (a) is supported in contact with the electronic component contact surface (fig 7, see the rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Nakase fail to teach “each of the side wall parts only protrudes”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakase teach (fig 2) “each of the side wall parts extends from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part and the end side of the top wall part”; additionally noting that one of ordinary skill in the would interpret “each of the side wall parts only protrudes from the end side of the heat dissipating surface of the base part” to be taught by fig 2, since the walls of fins extending from the base supporting the fins would only be considered to protrude from the base holding/supporting the fins. Additionally, due to indefinite issues the limitation has also been examined in a different interpretation (see above 11 section). However, Nakase teach both interpretations.
The applicant argues that no inner space are taught between the top of the fins and the bottom of the base of the heat sink in Nakase. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Channels in between the fins 8 are inner space taught between the top of the fins and the bottom of the base of the heat sink in Nakase.
Applicant argues the claim 15 is allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 1253638 A2.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763