Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 9 has overcome claim objection previously set forth in final office action dated 04/03/2025, therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 9 and 20 have overcome 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) previously set forth in non-final office action date 07/21/2025, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant originally submitted Claims 1-19 in the application. In the previous responses, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 9 and 12-13, 16, 20, and added new Claim 20. In the present response, the Applicant amended Claims 1-2, 9, 15 and 20. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filled 10/21/2025, with respect to rejection of Claims 1, 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, however not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of cited references teach or suggest “the ends of the base plate are arranged within a different plane than the central portion, the ends being offset toward the distal ends of the fins” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant, cite US 6,097,601 to Lee in Fig 3 clearly illustrates that both ends of base plate 53 at different plane than the plane of central section, and ends of 53 are offset toward distal ends of the fins.
Accordingly Examiner submits that in a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification Lee teaches or suggest above mentioned limitation of Claim 1 and 20.
Applicant argues that cited CN208090844 to Chen or US 6,097,601 to Lee do not disclose limitations of “a height of the fins increases from the central portion toward each of the first end and the second end” in Claims 1 and 9.
Examiner notes that although Lee Fig 3 clearly illustrate fins 50 at both ends of 53 being at a greater heights than the fins in the central portion of 53, however for further clarity, Examiner is currently citing US 2009/0139691 to Wei to teach or suggest this limitations of Claims 1 and 9.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN208090844) in view of Lee (US 6,097,601) and further in view of Wei (US 2009/0139691).
For the purpose of citation, Examiner used machine translation of CN208090844, said translation has been provided herewith to the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen (In Figs 2, 8) discloses A heat sink (1) for cooling at least one power electronics device (2) in a coil unit (¶ 2, II. 1-2), the heat sink (1) comprising: a base plate (11) having a first end, a second end, and a first side extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 8), the first side including a central portion, a first end portion proximate the first end, and a second end portion proximate the second end, a plurality of fins (12) extending from the first side (Fig 8), wherein a height of the plurality of fins (12) measured perpendicular to the first side varies across a width of the base plate (11), (Fig 8), however Chen does not discloses wherein the central portion is arranged within a first plane and the first end portion and the second end portion of the base plate are arranged within a second plane; wherein a height of the fins increases from the central portion to the first end and the second end; and wherein the second plane is offset from the first plane in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins.
Instead, Lee (in Fig 3) teaches wherein the central portion (central portion 53 in direct contact with 40 at one side and 30 at the opposing side) is arranged within a first plane (Fig 3) and the first end portion and the second end portion of the base plate (53) are arranged within a second plane (Fig 3); and wherein the second plane is offset from the first plane in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee the central portion being arranged within a first plane and the first and second end portions of the base plate being arranged in a second plane and the second plane offset from the first plane in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins to benefit from providing a retention mechanism for securing a heat sink to a central processing unit (CPU) to form an assembly of the heat sink, the CPU module and the retention mechanism in with a minimal volume thereby facilitating package and transportation (Lee Col 2, II. 10-15), however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein a height of the fins increases from the central portion to the first end and the second end.
Instead, Wei (In Fig 1) teaches wherein a height of the fins (38) increases from the central portion to the first end and the second end (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee and further with Wei with the height of the plurality of fins increasing from the central portion to the first and the second end to benefit from providing a heat dissipation apparatus with equally-distributed airflow to inner and outer regions of the heat sink (Wei, ¶ 6, II. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Lee and further in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Chen (In Figs 2, 8) further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (12) extends over a substantially entire length of the base plate (11), (Fig 8).
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei (US 2009/0139691).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen (In Figs 2,8) discloses a coil unit (¶ 2, II. 1-2) comprising: a heat exchanger (4/6, ¶ 32, II. 1-7); a fan assembly (5) mounted to the heat exchanger (4/6, ¶ 32, II. 1-7), the fan assembly (5) including a fan (5) rotatable about a fan axis (rotational axis of 5); at least one power electronic device (2); a heat sink (1) mounted adjacent to the at least one power electronic device (2), (Fig 2), wherein the fan assembly (5) is operable to move an airflow through the heat exchanger (4/6, ¶ 32, II. 1-7) and across the heat sink (1), (Fig 2), the heat sink (1) further comprising: a base plate (11) having a first end, a second end, and a first side extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 2), the first side including a central portion, a first end portion proximate the first end, and a second end portion proximate the second end (Fig 2), the base plate (11) being aligned with the fan assembly (5) within a horizontal plane (Fig 2); a plurality of fins (12) extending from the first side, wherein a height of the plurality of fins (12) measured perpendicular to the base plate varies across a width of the base plate (11), (Fig 8), wherein an axis of the plurality of fins (12) is perpendicular to the fan axis (Fig 1), however Chen does not disclose wherein a height of the fins increases from the central portion to each of the first end and the second end (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee and further with Wei with the height of the plurality of fins increasing from the central portion to each of the first and the second end to benefit from providing a heat dissipation apparatus with equally-distributed airflow to inner and outer regions of the heat sink (Wei, ¶ 6, II. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Chen (In Figs 2, 8) further discloses wherein a gap (gap between 5 and 12) is defined between the plurality of fins (12) and the fan assembly (5), (Fig 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Saito (JP2012044049).
For the purpose of citation, Examiner used machine translation of JP2012044049, said translation has been provided herewith to the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the gap varies over the width of the base plate.
Instead, Saito (In Fig 7) teaches wherein the gap (gap in between fins 3) varies over the width of the base plate (2), (Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Saito with the gap varying over the width of the base plate to benefit from improving heat dissipation efficiency without increasing weight or complicating the structure (Saito, ¶ 18, II. 6-8).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong (US 2016/0106000).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Lee and further in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the plurality of fins includes a first plurality of fins extending from the central portion and a second plurality of fins extending from the first end portion and the second end portion.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) teaches wherein the plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p) includes a first plurality of fins (14g-14j) extending from the central portion and a second plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p) extending from the first end portion and the second end portion (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with plurality of fins including a first plurality of fins extending from central portion and second plurality of fins extending from the first and second end portions to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein a configuration of the first plurality of fins varies from a configuration of the second plurality of fins.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) further teaches wherein a configuration of the first plurality of fins (14g-14j) varies from a configuration of the second plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p), (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with configuration of the first plurality of fins varying from configuration of the second plurality of fins to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the height of the first plurality of fins varies to form a curvature.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) further teaches wherein the height of the first plurality of fins (14g-14j) varies to form a curvature (29), (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with the height of the first plurality of fins varying to form a curvature to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the height of the second plurality of fins varies to form the curvature.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) further teaches wherein the height of the second plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p) varies to form the curvature (29), (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with the height of the second plurality of fins varying to form a curvature to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the curvature is uniform.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) further teaches wherein the curvature (29) is uniform (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with the curvature being uniform to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei further in view of Tang-Kong and further in view of Hoffmann (US 5,844,313).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Lee further in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the curvature is non-uniform.
Instead, Hoffmann (In Fig 2) teaches disclose wherein the curvature (curvature of fins 4 above 8) is non-uniform (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Lee further with Wei and further with Tang-Kong and further with Hoffmann with the curvature being non-uniform to benefit from a constant heat transfer coefficient, efficiently dissipating heat from semiconductor components, producing a constant fin efficiency across the entire cross section of heat sink, thereby improving the efficiency of known heat sink, whose fin efficiency vary depending upon the temperature variations at their attachment points to the base (Hoffmann Col 2, II. 36-54).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Chiou (GB2287837).
For the purpose of citation, Examiner used machine translation of GB2287837, said translation has been provided herewith to the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the gap is uniform over the width of the base plate.
Instead, Chiou (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the gap (gap between 501 and 402) is uniform over the width of the base plate (401), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Chiou with the gap being uniform over the width of the base plate to benefit from providing radiating fins which are radially spaced around the fan so that currents of air caused by the fan flow through the gaps among radiating fins could quickly carry heat away (Chiou , Summary of the Invention, II. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the gap is at least 5mm.
Instead, where Chiou (In Fig 1) teaches the gap (gap between 501 and 402) being constant and uniform over the width of the base plate (401), (Fig 1), however it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to size the gap to at least 5mm, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong.
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the plurality of fins further comprises a first plurality of fins and a second plurality of fins.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) teaches wherein the plurality of fins 14a-14f, 14g-14j , 14k-14p) further comprises a first plurality of fins (14g-14j) and a second plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p), (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with the plurality of fins further comprising a first plurality of fins and a second plurality of fins to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Tang-Kong discloses the limitations of Claim 14, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the first plurality of fins is arranged at the central portion and the second plurality of fins being arranged at the at least one of the first end portion and the second end portion.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) further teaches wherein the first plurality of fins (14g-14j) is arranged at the central portion (portion with fins 14g-14j) and the second plurality of fins (14a-14f, 14k-14p) being arranged at the at least one of the first end portion (portion with fins 14a-14f, 14k-14p) and the second end portion (portion with fins 14a-14f, 14k-14p), (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with the first plurality of fins being arranged at the central portion and the second plurality of fins being arranged at the first and the second end portions to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen in view of view Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the heat sink is symmetrical.
Instead, Tang-Kong (In Fig 2a) teaches wherein the heat sink (10) is symmetrical (Fig 2a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Tang-Kong with heat sink being symmetrical to benefit from increasing distance between adjacent fins, thereby providing greater fin thickness, thereby providing a larger surface area for convection of heat from the heat sink to the air (Tang-Kong, ¶ 5, II. 7-10, ¶ 6, II. 10-14).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Chang (US 2011/0277969).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Wei discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the base plate has a second portion, the second portion being disposed vertically beneath the first portion and further comprising another plurality of fins arranged at the second portion.
Instead, Chang (In Fig 4) teaches wherein the base plate (11) has a second portion (portion with fins 10), (Fig 4), the second portion (portion with fins 10) being disposed vertically beneath the first portion (portion with 13/14) and further comprising another plurality of fins (10) arranged at the second portion (portion with fins 10), (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Chang with the base plate having a second portion being disposed vertically beneath the first portion and further comprising another plurality of fins arranged at the second portion to benefit from providing fins with large heat absorption and heat dissipation area completely in contact with heat source, so as to sufficiently absorb the heat released by the electronic element (Chang ¶ 20, II. 4-11).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 16, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein a configuration of the plurality of fins is different than a configuration of the another plurality of fins.
Instead, Chang (In Fig 4) further teaches wherein a configuration of the plurality of fins (13/14) is different than a configuration of the another plurality of fins (10), (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Chang with configuration of the plurality of fins being different than a configuration of the another plurality of fins to benefit from providing fins with large heat absorption and heat dissipation area completely in contact with heat source, so as to sufficiently absorb the heat released by the electronic element (Chang ¶ 20, II. 4-11).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 16, however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein a height of the another plurality of fins varies to form an angled surface.
Instead, Chang (In Fig 4) further teaches wherein a height of the another plurality of fins (10) varies to form an angled surface (angled surface by 12), (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Chang with a height of the another plurality of fins varies to form an angled surface to benefit from providing fins with large heat absorption and heat dissipation area completely in contact with heat source, so as to sufficiently absorb the heat released by the electronic element (Chang ¶ 20, II. 4-11).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wei and further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen (In Figs 2, 8) discloses a heat sink (1) for cooling at least one power electronics device (2) in a coil unit (¶ 2, II. 1-2), the heat sink (1) comprising: a base plate (11) having a first end, a second end, and a first side extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 8); a plurality of fins (12) extending from the first side, wherein a height of the plurality of fins (12) measured perpendicular to the first side varies across a width of the base plate (11) between the first end and the second end (Fig 8), however Chen does not disclose wherein the height of the plurality of fins varies to form a concave curvature; and wherein the first side proximate at least one of the first end and the second end of the base plate is offset from the first side at a center of the base plate in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins.
Instead Wei (In Fig 1) teaches wherein the height of the plurality of fins (38) varies to form a concave curvature (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei with the height of the plurality of fins varying to form a concave curvature to benefit from providing a heat dissipation apparatus with equally-distributed airflow to inner and outer regions of the heat sink (Wei, ¶ 6, II. 1-3), however Chen as modified does not disclose wherein the first side proximate at least one of the first end and the second end of the base plate is offset from the first side at a center of the base plate in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 3) teaches wherein the first side proximate at least one of the first end and the second end of the base plate (53) is offset from the first side at a center of the base plate (11) in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins (50), (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with Wei and further with Lee with the first side proximate at least one of first end and the second end of the base plate being offset from the first side at a center of the base plate in a direction toward a distal end of the plurality of fins to benefit from providing a retention mechanism for securing a heat sink to a central processing unit (CPU) to form an assembly of the heat sink, the CPU module and the retention mechanism in with a minimal volume thereby facilitating package and transportation (Lee Col 2, II. 10-15).
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 AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. 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.
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.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835