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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/2/24 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/2/24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does relies on new reference Yang for teaching matters specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-16, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0056940 (Chu) in view of WO Publication No. 2019/241223 (Lee, Yang is equivalent is U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0131753).
Chu discloses
1. (Previously Presented) A system (Figs. 1 and 6) for cooling an integrated circuit (IC), the system comprising:
a) a closed vessel (100, ¶ [0025]) for holding a coolant (111, ¶ [0025]) in a liquid phase (¶ [0033]), the vessel being delimited at least in part by a heat transfer region (1, ¶ [0016], 126, ¶ [0030]), the heat transfer region being thermally-coupled with the IC (124, ¶ [0030]); and
b) a heat-releasing element (102 / 104, ¶ [0025]).
Chu fails to disclose
wherein the heat transfer region comprises a Multi-Scale Electroplated Porous (MuSEP) structure exhibiting a gradient of at least one of a porosity and a pore size distribution along at least one dimension of the heat transfer region.
Lee teaches (paragraph numbers used below are from U.S. equivalent)
A system (at least Figs. 28, 29) for cooling an integrated circuit (IC), the system comprising:
wherein the heat transfer region (hybrid mesh structure 2804) comprises a Multi-Scale (multi-layer, [0180]) Electroplated ([0184]) Porous ([0184]) structure ([0175]-[0187]) exhibiting a gradient of at least one of a porosity and a pore size distribution (gradient channels) along at least one dimension of the heat transfer region (hybrid mesh structure 2804). Note the terminology MuSEP is a unique term used by Applicant.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “MuSEP” structure that exhibits a gradient in Chu to increase surface roughness to improve surface wettability for higher capillary pumping capability and increase effective nucleation site density for bubble nucleation as taught by Lee (Yang ¶[0184]). In addition, wicking velocity is improved and volumetric flow rate is enhanced (Yang ¶[0186]).
Lee teaches
2. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the MuSEP structure is produced by multi-step electroplating (Yang [0184]) with current variation at several ones of the steps. Note, the process is not being given an patentable weight since this is a system claim and not a process claim.
Lee teaches
4. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the MuSEP structure exhibits a porosity gradient along a vertical direction (Figs. 28, 29).
Chu discloses and Lee teaches
5. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 4, wherein the IC comprises a silicon die (¶[0022], ¶[0030]), the MuSEP structure being electrodeposited on a surface of the silicon die (electroplated, Figs. 28, 29) . Note, the process is not being given an patentable weight since this is a system claim and not a process claim.
Chu discloses
6. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the heat transfer region is an integrated heat spreader (1, ¶ [0016])
Chu discloses
7. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the heat transfer region is made of at least one metallic material (¶ [0020]).
Chu discloses
8. (Original) The system of claim 7, wherein the heat transfer region is made of copper (¶[0032]).
Chu fails to specifically disclose
9. (Original) The system of claim 7, wherein the heat transfer region is made of nickel.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nickel instead of copper in Chu based on its suitability for an intended purpose. (See MPEP 2144.07).
Chu discloses
10. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein the heat-releasing element is a heat sink (1, ¶ [0016]).
Chu discloses
11. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the heat sink is in contact with the coolant in a liquid phase (coolant inlet 6, ¶ [0016]).
Lee teaches
12. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the heat-releasing element is a condenser (Yang ¶ [0194]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a condenser in Chu to based on its suitability for the intended use, and to condense vapor as taught by Lee (Yang ¶ [0162]). See MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of references teaches the following unless Applicant can prove otherwise
13. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the coolant is substantially free of non-condensable gas.
Chu discloses
14. (Original) The system of claim 1, further comprising connection means to secure the system to the IC (¶¶ [0031], [0034]).
Chu discloses
15. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 14, wherein the IC (104) is a data processing device (¶[0022], ¶[0030]).
The combination of references teaches the following unless Applicant can prove otherwise
16. (Original) The system of claim 15, wherein there is no contact between the coolant in a liquid phase and the electronic device.
Lee teaches (Figs. 28, 29)
35. (New) The system of claim 1, wherein the MuSEP structure 2804 comprises a random particle formation.
Lee teaches (Yang [0175]-[0187])
36. (New) The system of claim 35, wherein 50% of the particles have a size of less than 15 micrometers.
Lee teaches (Yang [0175]-[0187])
37. (New) The system of claim 35, wherein a porosity of the MuSEP structure is 49.4% (the percentage is close to this value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the porosity based on routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,386,143 (Fitch).
The combination of Chu and Yang fails to teach
3. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 2, wherein the MuSEP structure comprises small particles in a bottom region, and bigger particles arranged above the smaller particles.
Fitch teaches
A system for cooling an IC (20), comprising:
wherein the MuSEP structure (14) comprises small particles in a bottom region, and bigger particles arranged above the smaller particles (“suitable dimensions”, small pores, larger channels, large pores, column 3, lines 15-32).
Also, Lee teaches the metal mesh 2804 provides a macro-level porosity and the metal particles provide a micro-level porosity.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a smaller and larger particles in Chu for the movement of heat transfer liquid thus providing suitable, mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties as taught by Fitch (column 2, lines 9-13; column 3, lines 15-32) and the arrangement would not change the operation of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893