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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a 371 of international PCT application.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been received. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Application No. 18/129,657. Although the Claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to Claim 1, claim 1 of the '657 application recites (Recitations of the ‘657 application in parentheses) a microchannel structure comprising (cl. 1: ” a passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader comprising”):
a monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (cl. 1: “a monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features”), wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (cl. 1: “wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features”) includes a substrate and features having two or more different vertical feature heights above the substrate (cl. 1: “verbatim”);
wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (cl. 1: “wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features”) does not include any wafer-to-wafer bonds (cl. 1: “verbatim”);
wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (cl. 1: “wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features”) includes features having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more (cl. 1: “verbatim”).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following lack of antecedent bases informalities:
● In Claim 1, Line 10, “features” is changed to read - - the features - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batty et al (US 2010/0132923) in view of Upadhya et al (US 2004/0188066).
Regarding Claim 1, Batty (In Fig 18) discloses a microchannel structure (apparatus, ¶ 63, II. 1-6) comprising:
a monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (12/16/160), wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (12/16/160) includes a substrate (12) and features (16/160) having two or more different vertical feature heights above the substrate (12), (Fig 18);
wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (12/16/160) does not include any wafer-to-wafer bonds (12/16/160 are not wafer-to-wafer bonded); however wherein Batty teaches the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features includes features having a vertical feature height of 1/8 inches (¶ 87, II. 1-6), however Batty does not disclose wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features includes features having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more.
Instead, Upadhya (In Figs 1A) teaches wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features (103/20/22), (¶ 11, II. 7-12) includes features (20/22) having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more (¶ 36, II. 1-10).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya with the monolithically microfabricated array of channel features including features having a vertical height of 150 microns or more to benefit from a liquid pumped cooling system which could remove heat with considerably less flow volume and maintain better temperature uniform with significantly less acoustic noise (Upadhya ¶ 6, II. 1-7).
Examiner Note; A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re. Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the courts held that mere changes in shape and size are obvious, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
Regarding Claim 2, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty (In Fig 18) further discloses wherein the microchannel structure (12/16/160) includes one or more fluid flow structures (14/14a/14b) selected from the group consisting of: channels (channels, ¶ 69, II. 1-14), pockets, particle traps, vapor vents, and sensor conduits.
Regarding Claim 3, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty (In Fig 18) further discloses wherein the microchannel structure (12/16/160) includes two or more primary channels (14a/14a) connected via secondary channels (14b/14b), (Fig 18).
Regarding Claim 5, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty (In Fig 18) further discloses wherein at least one channel (14/14a/14b) of the microchannel structure (12/16/160) has a channel depth that varies along its length (Fig 18).
Regarding Claim 12, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty (In Fig 18) further discloses an active cooling heat sink device (10), (Fig 18) including the microchannel structure (12/16/160) of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Greif et al (DE102011089891).
For the purpose of citation, Examiner used machine translation of DE102011089891, said translation has been provided herewith to the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 4, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty ad modified does not disclose wherein at least one channel of the microchannel structure has stepwise tapered side walls.
Instead, Greif (In Fig 5) teaches wherein at least one channel (channels between adjacent ones of 122) of the microchannel structure (122) has stepwise tapered side walls (walls of 122), (Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Greif with at least one channel of the microchannel structure having stepwise tapered side walls to benefit from quickly and efficiently dissipating heat by the cooling structure which otherwise would be detrimental to the system (Upadhya ¶ 3, II. 3-5).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2023/0197448).
Regarding Claim 6, Batty in view of Upadhya discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the microchannel structure includes lithographically defined surface roughness.
Instead, Zhang (In Fig 2A-2J) teaches wherein the microchannel structure (¶ 30, II. 17-19), (pillars, ¶ 38, II. 3-8), (Fig 2J) includes lithographically defined surface roughness (¶ 33, II. 19-28).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the microchannel structure including lithography defined surface roughness to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Regarding Claim 7, Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness is present at two or more vertical levels of the microchannel structure.
Instead, Zhang (In Figs 2A-2J) further teaches wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness is present at two or more vertical levels of the microchannel structure (pillars, ¶ 38, II. 3-8), (¶ 33, II. 19-28), (Fig 2J).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the lithographically defined surface roughness being present at two or more vertical levels of the microchannel structure to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Regarding Claim 8, Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness includes pillars.
Instead, Zhang (In Figs 2A-2J) further teaches wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness (¶ 33, II. 19-28) includes pillars (pillars, ¶ 38, II. 3-8), (¶ 41, II. 7-8), (Fig 2J).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the lithography defined surface roughness including pillars to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Regarding Claim 9, Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness includes holes.
Instead, Zhang (In Fig 4C) teaches wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness (¶ 33, II. 19-28) includes holes (holes, ¶ 41, II. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the lithography defined surface roughness including holes to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Regarding Claim 10, Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness includes multi-level features.
Instead, Zhang (In Fig 4A) teaches wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness (¶ 33, II. 19-28) includes multi-level features (1,2), (¶ 45, II. 16-18).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the lithography defined surface roughness including multi-level features to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Regarding Claim 11, Batty in view of Upadhya and further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Batty as modified does not disclose wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness features are configured as an array of surface roughness features having two or more vertical heights above a base surface of the surface roughness features.
Instead, Zhang (In Fig 4A) further teaches wherein the lithographically defined surface roughness features (1,2), (¶ 45, II. 16-18), (Fig 4A) are configured as an array of surface roughness features (1,2) having two or more vertical heights above a base surface (W) of the surface roughness features (1,2), (Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Batty with Upadhya and further with Zhang with the lithographically defined surface roughness features being configured as an array of surface roughness features with two or more vertical heights above a base surface of the surface roughness features to benefit from achieving small step height achievable through lithography process to make high aspect ratio, tall (>= 100 µm) micro-mesoscale multi-level structures that is simple, cost effective, and can operate between reasonable process tolerances (Zhang ¶ 26, II. 26-32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; Micro Heat transfer Arrays, Micro Cold Plates, and Thermal Management Systems for Cooling Semiconductor Devices, and Methods for Using and Making Such Arrays, Plates, and Systems, Vapor Escape Microchannel Heat Exchanger US 2004/0104012, Enhanced Flow Boiling Heat Transfer in Microchannels with Structured Surfaces US 2016/0033212, Micro Jet Impingement Heat Sink US 10,306,802. Other pertinent art made of record are on form PTO-892 notice of reference cited.
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