CTFR 17/903,278 CTFR 82663 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2005/0252640 A1) in view of Katoh et al. (US 2006/0237178 A1) Re. claim 1: Chang discloses a heat exchanger for an apparatus, comprising: a bottom plate (12); a top plate (11); and (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0024-0025) a plurality of heat dissipating fins (43) extending between the top plate and the bottom sixes plate that form a plurality of air channels (44), (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0026-0030) wherein the top plate and/or the bottom plate comprises a heat conducting material, (see para. 0024) wherein the plurality of heat dissipating fins receive heat from the top plate or the bottom (see para. 0024-0025) wherein individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins include a baffle (46, 47) that protrudes into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) Chang fails to disclose: The baffles cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. However, Katoh discloses: A plurality of heat dissipating fins (12) wherein individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins include a baffle (17) that protrudes into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels (spaces between 12) to cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. (see fig. 9; para. 0191-0195) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the baffles in Chang to be the same shape and spacing as the baffles taught by Katoh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to suppress resonance and reduce the sound created by the fins. (Katoh para. 0195) Re. claim 2: Chang discloses wherein each one of the plurality of heat dissipating fins (43) comprises a respective baffle (46, 47). (see fig. 2, 4) Re. claim 5: Katoh discloses wherein the respective baffle (17) of each one of the subset of the plurality of fins (12) increases a surface area of respective ones of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins. (see para. 0042) Re. claim 8: Chang discloses wherein a respective baffle (46, 47) of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins comprises the respective baffle’s fin formed into a plurality of alternating angles. (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) Re. claim 9: Katoh discloses wherein the heat exchanger is formed from copper or aluminum. (see para. 0119) Re. claim 10: Chang discloses a method, comprising: forming, from a heat dissipating material, a plurality of heat dissipating fins (43); (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0026-0030) forming a baffle (46, 47) into individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins; and (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) forming a plurality of air channels (44) by disposing the plurality of beat dissipating fins between a top plate (11) and a bottom plate (12), (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0024-0025) wherein a respective baffle of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins protrudes into corresponding individual ones of the plurality of air channels (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) Chang fails to disclose: The baffles cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. However, Katoh discloses: A plurality of heat dissipating fins (12) wherein individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins include a baffle (17) that protrudes into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels (spaces between 12) to cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. (see fig. 9; para. 0191-0195) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the baffles in Chang to be the same shape and spacing as the baffles taught by Katoh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to suppress resonance and reduce the sound created by the fins. (Katoh para. 0195) Re. claim 11: Chang discloses wherein the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins (43) comprises all of the plurality of fins. (46, 47). (see fig. 2, 4) Re. claim 16: Chang discloses wherein a respective baffle (46, 47) of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins comprises the respective baffle’s fin formed into a plurality of alternating angles. (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) Re. claim 17: Chang discloses a computing device, comprising: a processor (3); (see fig. 3; para. 0007, 0025) a heat exchanger (1) configured to dissipate heat from the processor; and (see fig. 2, 3; para. 0024-0028) a fan (2) disposed to pass air through the heat exchanger; (see fig. 2; para. 0024-0027) wherein the heat exchanger comprises: a top plate (11) and a bottom plate (12), (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0024-0025) wherein the top plate and/or the bottom plate is heat conducting, and (see para. 0024) a plurality of heat dissipating fins (43) extending between the top plate and the bottom plate to form a plurality of air channels (44), (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0026-0030) wherein the plurality of heat dissipating fins are disposed to receive heat from the top plate or the bottom plate, and (see para. 0024-0025) wherein individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins include a baffle (46, 47) that protrudes into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels (see fig. 5-9; para. 0031-0035) Chang fails to disclose: The baffles cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. However, Katoh discloses: A plurality of heat dissipating fins (12) wherein individual ones of a subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins include a baffle (17) that protrudes into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels (spaces between 12) to cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generating standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference. (see fig. 9; para. 0191-0195) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the baffles in Chang to be the same shape and spacing as the baffles taught by Katoh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to suppress resonance and reduce the sound created by the fins. (Katoh para. 0195) Re. claim 18: Chang discloses a heat pipe (5) in contact with the processor and the heat exchanger, wherein the heat pipe is configured to couple heat generated by the processor (3) to the heat exchanger (1). (see fig. 2, 3; para. 0028) Re. claim 19: Chang discloses wherein the computing device comprises a laptop computer (notebook computer). (see para. 0007) Re. claim 20: Chang discloses wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device (notebook computer). (see para. 0007) 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4, 6-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Katoh as applied to claim s 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lev et al. (US 2009/0027850 A1) Re. claims 3-4 and 12-13: Chang and Katoh fail to disclose: wherein a further subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins do not have a baffle; and wherein the further subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins that do not have a baffle are interleaved with the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins that include a baffle. However, Lev discloses: wherein a further subset (106) of the plurality of heat dissipating fins (100) do not have a baffle; and(see fig. 4A; para. 0012) wherein the further subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins that do not have a baffle (106) are interleaved with the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins that include a baffle (104). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert within the teachings of Chang and Katoh a subset of fins without a baffle between the subset of fins that include a baffle as taught by Lev. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the rate of heat transfer and increase the convection away from the processor. (Lev para. 0012) Re. claims 6 and 14: Lev discloses wherein a respective baffle of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins comprises a rounded rectangular depression (108) that protrudes from a plane defined by the respective baffle’s fin. (see fig. 4B; para. 0012) Re. claims 7 and 15: Chang and Katoh fail to disclose: wherein a respective baffle of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins comprises the respective baffle’s fin formed into a sinusoidal pattern However, Lev discloses: wherein a respective baffle of each one of the subset of the plurality of heat dissipating fins comprises the respective baffle’s fin formed into a sinusoidal pattern (102). (see fig. 2, 3; para. 0010-0012) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the baffle’s fin of Chang and Katoh into a sinusoidal pattern as taught by Lev. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to better dissipate heat from the heat pipe out of the apparatus. (Lev para. 0009-0010) Response to Arguments 07-38-02 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 , filed 09 October 2025 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang, in combination with the claim amendments , have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chang in view of Katoh as seen above Applicant argues that Chang fails to disclose the baffles “protrude into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels to cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generate standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference.” The Examiner partly agrees. Chang teaches the baffles “protrude into a respective individual one of the plurality of air channels” (see figs. 5-9) However, Chang fails to teach this protrusion of baffles “cause reflections of sound energy at an angle towards adjacent ones of the plurality of heat dissipating fins, the reflections of sound energy generate standing waves within each one of the plurality of air channels to at least partially cancel out fan noise via destructive interference.” Kato teaches the claimed partial cancelation of noise due to destructive interference and a reduction in wind sound. (see para. 0032-0033, 0193-0196) Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. October 24, 2025 /ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 2 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 3 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 4 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 5 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 6 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 7 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 8 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 9 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 10 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 11 Art Unit: 2835 Application/Control Number: 17/903,278 Page 12 Art Unit: 2835
Prosecution Insights