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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-14) and Species A (Figures 18, 20A-20E) in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 2/5/2026 are as follows:
Claims 6 and 15-22 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 23-26 are newly added;
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 23-26 are pending;
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 23-26 are being examined.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 2/5/2026 and are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US2008/0105413A1, as previously cited) in view of Thayer (US2005/0082037A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Peng discloses a cold plate (1) for an electronic device (4) (Figures 3, 7; Paragraph 3 teaches using the cold plate for electronic devices, Paragraph 30 teaches the bottom surface 121 is for contacting a heat source; Paragraph 34 teaches the heat source 4 is a CPU or other heat generating chip, which are considered electronic devices), the cold plate comprising:
a body (11, 12) defining a cavity (internal space of 11 and 12), the body having an inlet opening (111) and an outlet opening (112) fluidically coupled to the cavity such that a fluid passageway (i.e. passage from 111 to 112 inside of 1) is defined between the inlet opening and the outlet opening (Figures 2-3, 7; Paragraphs 30-31, 34); and
a fin bank (2) in the cavity, the fin bank including metal foam (122), the fins spaced apart from each other such that channels between the fins enable fluid to flow through the channels and along surfaces of the fins, and such that openings or voids on the surfaces of the fins form nucleation sites for bubbles to form and detach from the surfaces of the fins (Figure 3; Paragraph 31; The structure 122 is a microchannel structure formed from sintered metal powders that is porous with fine particles, which is interpreted as a metal foam material. Figures 7-12 illustrates the metal foam 2 forms a plurality of fin strips; Paragraphs 34-37).
Peng fails to specifically teach the fin bank including a base plate and fins extending from the base plate.
However, Thayer teaches the metal foam is included in a fin bank, the fin bank includes a base plate (12) and a plurality of fins (14) extending from the base plate (Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Therefore, in view of Thayer's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a base plate for the fins of Peng in order to provide increased heat dissipation throughout the metal foam fins by being interconnected, thereby reducing thermal resistance in the metal foam. Additionally, in view of Thayer’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a base plate for the fins of Peng in order to allow for better connection of the fins to the body (see Thayer Paragraph 26 that states “This allows for brazed attachment and little or no thermal expansion mismatches when positioned within base 5”).
Re Claim 2. Peng discloses the metal foam is an open-cell-structure foam material (Figure 3; Paragraph 31; The structure 122 is a microchannel structure formed from sintered metal powders that is porous with fine particles, which is interpreted as an open-cell-structure foam material).
Re Claim 3. Peng discloses the metal foam is copper foam or aluminum foam (Figure 3; Paragraph 31 teaches copper).
Re Claim 4. Peng teaches the metal foam (Paragraph 31) but fails to specifically teach the metal foam has a relative density of 3-12%. However, the density of the foam is a result-effective variable that achieves a given result. In this instance, the greater the density of the metal foam, the greater the heat transfer capabilities but at a greater the pressure drop. Conversely, the lower the density of the metal foam, the lesser the heat transfer capabilities but at a less pressure drop. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the metal foam is porous with a given density, were disclosed in the prior art by Peng, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the metal foam of Peng with a density of 3-12%. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the metal foam of Peng with a density of 3-12%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 5. Peng discloses the metal foam is a compressible metal foam (Figure 3; Paragraph 31; With enough force the metal foam will be compressible).
Re Claim 7. Peng as modified by Thayer teach the metal foam in the base plate has a lower porosity than the metal foam in the fins (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35; Figure 9 of Thayer illustrates the base 12 has a lower porosity than the fins 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the porosity of the base plate and fins, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 8. Peng as modified by Thayer teach the fins are parallel to each other (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Re Claim 9. Peng further teaches the body includes a base (11 or 12) and a lid (other of 11 or 12), the cavity defined in the base (Figures 3, 7-12; Either component 11 or 12 can be considered the lid with the other component being considered the base).
Re Claim 10. Peng as modified by Thayer teach the fins are engaged with the lid (Peng Figures 7, 9 illustrates the fins engaging the lid).
Re Claim 11. Peng as modified by Thayer teach the base plate of the fin bank is coupled to the base via brazing (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35; Thayer teaches using brazing for interconnecting components. Further, the use of brazing is well-known and understood in the art).
Re Claim 12. Peng as modified by Thayer teach including braze film between the base plate and a surface of the base in the cavity (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35; Thayer teaches using brazing for interconnecting components. Further, the use of brazing is well-known and understood in the art).
Re Claim 13. Peng discloses the metal foam increases bubble formation and detachment (Figure 3; Paragraphs 30-31; The porous material of 122 will increase bubble formation by forming numerous nucleation sites).
Re Claim 14. Peng discloses the metal foam reduces wall superheat of the cold plate (Figure 3; Paragraphs 30-31; The metal foam will spread heat, thus reducing wall superheat).
Re Claim 23. Peng as modified by Thayer teach at least one of the fins has a first side surface extending from the base plate, a second side surface extending from the base plate, and a top surface extending between the first and second side surfaces, the first and second side surfaces exposed to the fluid in the channels (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Re Claim 24. Peng as modified by Thayer teach the top surface is spaced from a lid of the body and exposed to the fluid (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Re Claim 25. Peng as modified by Thayer teach each of the fins has a first side surface extending from the base plate, a second side surface extending from the base plate, and a top surface extending between the first and second side surfaces, the first and second side surfaces exposed to the fluid in the channels (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Re Claim 26. Peng as modified by Thayer teach a top surface of the base plate is exposed to the fluid in the channels (Peng Figures 7-12; Thayer Figures 1, 2, 8-11; Paragraphs 26, 28, 33-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the reply that “Claim 1 sets forth a cold plate including a fin bank including metal foam, the fin bank including a base plate and fins extending from the base plate, the fins spaced apart from each other such that channels between the fins enable fluid to flow through the channels and along surfaces of the fins, and such that openings or voids on the surfaces of the fins form nucleation sites for bubbles to form and detach from the surfaces of the fins. During the Examiner Interview of February 2, 2026, Examiner Ruby agreed the amendment, as substantially presented herein, overcomes the current rejection. As such, claim 1 and its dependent claims are allowable. Withdrawal of the related rejections is respectfully requested”. However, the submitted claims on 2/5/2026 are not the same as the ones presented during the interview on 2/2/2026. Specifically, the proposed claim in the interview recited “a fin bank in the cavity, the fin bank constructed of metal foam”, whereas the filed claim on 2/5/2026 recites “a fin bank in the cavity, the fin bank including metal foam”. The fin bank being constructed of metal foam is different from the fin bank including metal foam. Thus, the claims are different in scope, wherein Peng and Thayer teach fin banks including metal foam, as outlined above. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763