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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 7,694,723 B2), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The indicated allowability of claims 7 – 9 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Patrascu et al. (US 2009/0129952 A1) and Yairi et al. (US 2015/0070836 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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, 5, 6 – 8 and 10 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 7,694,723 B2; hereinafter “Ma”) in view of Patrascu et al. (US 2009/0129952 A1; hereinafter “Patrascu”).
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a thermal management device (figures 1 – 8; col. 2, lines 42 – col. 5, line 39) comprising:
a microfluidic volume having a first peripheral side (at the line inlet pipeline 11) and a second peripheral side (at the outlet pipeline 12) and including at least one thermal element (cooling block with cavity 1; figure 1);
a pumping membrane (membrane 2; figures 1 and 3; col. 2, lines 55 – 59) located adjacent to the microfluidic volume (chamber 13) between the first peripheral side (at the inlet pipeline 11) and the second peripheral side (at the outlet pipeline 12) and the at least one thermal element (cooling block with cavity 1; figure 1);
a first port (inlet 11) to the microfluidic volume;
a second port (outlet 12) from the microfluidic volume; and
a pumping piezoelectric element (piezoelectric piece 3; figures 1 and 3; col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 10) in mechanical communication with the pumping membrane (2) to move at least a portion of the pumping membrane (2) and alter a volume of the microfluidic volume (col. 3, lines 20 – 50; figures 3 and 4).
Ma does not specifically teach a valve piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with at least one of an inlet valve and an outlet valve to move at least a portion of the inlet valve or the outlet valve and selectively allow fluid flow through the microfluidic volume.
However, Patrascu teaches a microfluidic device comprising a piezo-actuated microfluidic valve (paragraphs 104 – 113; figure 12). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, 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 valve piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with at least one of an inlet valve and an outlet valve to move at least a portion of the inlet valve or the outlet valve and selectively allow fluid flow through the microfluidic volume.
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches the thermal management device of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic volume is in thermal communication with a die (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches the thermal management device of claim 1, further comprising substrate, and wherein the microfluidic volume is at least partially adjacent to the substrate (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 6, Ma teaches the thermal management device of claim 1, wherein the first port includes an inlet valve and the second port includes an outlet valve (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Patrascu teaches a microfluidic device comprising a piezo-actuated microfluidic valve (paragraphs 104 – 113; figure 12). 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 valve piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with at least one of an inlet membrane of the inlet valve and an outlet membrane of the outlet valve to move at least a portion of the inlet membrane or the outlet membrane and selectively allow fluid flow through the microfluidic volume.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Patrascu teaches a microfluidic device comprising a piezo-actuated microfluidic valve (paragraphs 104 – 113; figure 12). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide wherein the valve piezoelectric element is in mechanical communication with at least a portion of the inlet valve, and the outlet valve is a passive valve.
Regarding claim 10, Ma teaches a method of thermal management (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8), the method comprising:
measuring (implicit) a thermal management demand of a heat-generating component in thermal communication with a microfluidic volume;
determining (implicit), based at least partially on the thermal management demand, a target flow rate of working fluid through the microfluidic volume;
applying an electric voltage or current to a pump piezoelectric element (piezoelectric piece 3; col. 2, line 60 col. 3, line 10; figures 1 and 3) in mechanical communication with a pumping membrane (membrane 2; col. 2, lines 55 – 59; figures 1 and 3);
moving at least a portion of the pumping membrane (membrane 2; col. 3, lines 20 – 50; figures 3 and 4);
altering (implicit) a volume of the microfluidic volume based at least partially on the target flow rate; and
flowing working fluid into the microfluidic volume (chamber 13) through an inlet (inlet 11) positioned at a peripheral side of the microfluidic volume (chamber 13).
Regarding claim 11, Ma teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the thermal management demand includes a temperature of the heat-generating component (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 12, Ma teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the thermal management demand includes a workload of the heat-generating component (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 13, Ma teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the thermal management demand includes a power draw of the heat-generating component (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 14, Ma teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the thermal management demand includes a local region of the heat-generating component (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 15, Ma teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising selectively opening an inlet valve of the inlet based at least partially on the local region of the thermal management demand (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 16, Ma teaches the method of claim 15, wherein opening the inlet valve includes applying an electric voltage or current to a valve piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with an inlet membrane (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 17, Ma teaches the method of claim 10, wherein applying an electric voltage or current to a pump piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with the pumping membrane and moving at least a portion of the pumping membrane includes applying an electric voltage or current to a first pump piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with a first pumping membrane and moving at least a portion of the first pumping membrane; and further comprising: applying an electric voltage or current to a second pump piezoelectric element in mechanical communication with a second pumping membrane and moving at least a portion of the second pumping membrane (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 18, Ma teaches the method of claim 17, wherein moving at least a portion of the first pumping membrane and moving at least a portion of the second pumping membrane includes moving at least the portion of the first pumping membrane opposite the portion of the second pumping membrane to create a wave (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8).
Regarding claim 19, Ma teaches a thermal management device (col. 2, line 42 – col. 5, line 39; figures 1 – 8) including a microfluidic volume (chamber 13) having a first peripheral side (inlet 11) and a second peripheral side (outlet 12) and including at least one thermal element (cooling block comprising cavity 1; figure 1);
a pumping membrane (membrane 2; col. 2, lines 55 – 59; figures 1 and 3) located adjacent to the microfluidic volume (13) between the first peripheral side (11) and the second peripheral side (12) and the at least one thermal element (cooling block);
an inlet valve (valve 8; col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 7; figures 5 and 6) to the microfluidic volume (13) located at the first peripheral side (at the inlet 11);
an outlet valve (valve 8a; col. 4, lines 7 – 12) from the microfluidic volume (13) located at the second peripheral side (at the outlet 12); and
a pumping piezoelectric element (piezoelectric piece 3; figures 1 and 3; col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 10) in mechanical communication with the pumping membrane (2) to move at least a portion of the pumping membrane (2) and alter a volume of the microfluidic volume (col. 3, lines 20 – 50; figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Ma teaches the thermal management device of claim 19, further comprising a pump configured to pressurize a working fluid at the inlet valve (col. 3, lines 20 – 50; figures 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 7,694,723 B2; hereinafter “Ma”) in view of Patrascu et al. (US 2009/0129952 A1; hereinafter “Patrascu”), and further in view of Yairi et al. (US 2015/0070836 A1; hereinafter “Yairi”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ma does not specifically teach the thermal management device of claim 1, further comprising a bi-directional manifold in fluid communication with the first port.
However, Yairi teaches the conventional use of manifolds in microfluidic apparatus (paragraph 37). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, 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 bi-directional manifold in fluid communication with the first port in order to facilitate effective flow control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art does not specifically teach nor fairly suggest the thermal management device of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic volume is located between a first die and a second die of a stacked die processor.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 11/26/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. The references to Patrascu et al. (US 2009/0129952 A1) and Yairi et al. (US 2015/0070836 A1) were referenced in the written opinion cited in the IDS filed 9/15/2025. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Elizabeth A Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796