DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to communication dated 05/31/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is no information disclosure statement provided and thus will not be considered.
Drawings
The drawings dated 05/31/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 05/31/2023 has been reviewed. It has 117 words and 9 lines and no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 reads “the method of claim 1, wherein the initial channel design includes anastomosing channels”. The term “anastomosing” is interpreted under its dictionary definition, as described by dictionary.com, a connection between parts of a branching system.
Claim 15 reads “The method of claim 13, wherein the machine learning model includes a diffusion limited algorithm.” The term “diffusion limited algorithm” and the specification, paragraphs [0052] and [0093], does not provide a definition for the phrase. Based on the plain meanings of the words, the phrase is interpreted to mean an algorithm for heat diffusion that is restricted (i.e., limited) in some manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A method for manufacturing a thermal management device”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the method comprising: modeling a thermal management demand of a [region] as a [visualization] (EXAMNIER NOTE: modeling the thermal management demand is a calculation of a proportion of power consumption (instant specification paragraph 0073); i.e., evaluating and deriving a scenario of a region using a mathematical relationship); selecting an initial [scenario] based on the [visualization] (i.e., judging which scenario to choose by evaluating a visualization); evaluating the [scenario], wherein evaluated metrics include at least [variable A and B] of the [scenario] (i.e., evaluation of a scenario based of two variables); changing at least one parameter of the [scenario] based on the evaluated metrics to create [another scenario] (i.e., judgement to change a scenario based on a variable); [region][scenario]” which is a recitation of a mathematical relationship of deriving a visualization that then informs the mental processes of judging a scenario, evaluating that scenario, and adjusting the scenario. A human being is capable of performing the judgement of selecting a scenario based on numerical metrics. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as a physical aid. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship and a mental process.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “pressure drop and thermal resistance” these merely specify the type of variables to consider while performing a mental evaluation of the scenario. These elements are additional elements of the abstract idea and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “forming at least one thermal element in or on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design”, which in light of the specification (paragraph 0053 “a subtractive manufacturing process”; paragraph 0054 “an additive manufacturing process”) describes a manufacturing process to apply the scenario of a region. This limitation is interpreted as Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites elements like “heat-generating component on an outer surface of the heat-generating component” and “heat generation map” this limitation is interpreted as linking the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as thermal modeling, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the [scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “includes an inlet position” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely provides further details to the scenario chosen by the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the [scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “includes an outlet position” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely provides further details to the scenario chosen by the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the [scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “includes a channel length” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely provides further details to the scenario chosen by the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the [scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “includes a channel pitch” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely provides further details to the scenario chosen by the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein modeling a thermal demandmapping a [visualization] [a region] (i.e., observing a visualization and evaluating where those are on a region)“ which is a recitation of a mental process of evaluating. A human being is capable of performing the evaluation of how a map corresponds with a surface. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as a physical aid. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mental process.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites elements like “heat generating-component”, “power consumption map”, and “outer surface of the heat-generating component” this limitation is interpreted as linking the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), such as thermal management, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim recites a mental process of observing and evaluating how a visualization lies on a region and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “[scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “each channel of a plurality of channels of the initial channel design has an equal channel length” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim merely provides further details to the scenario chosen by the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “[region][scenario] ” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “wherein forming at least one thermal element …includes removing die material from the outer surface of the heat-generating component”, which in light of the instant specification paragraph 0053 is “a subtractive manufacturing process”, this is interpreted as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to implementation into a practical application. Importantly, this element is not considered to constitute a particular machine as it provides no specificity on a machine used to accomplish the task as described. The instant specification, in fact, provides multiple different machines that can accomplish an “subtractive manufacturing process” in paragraph 0053 (“selective laser 868 etching and/or ablation…chemical etching, lithography (e.g., photolithography or e-beam lithography), skiving, or combinations thereof”) which does not constitute a particular machine. Furthermore, this claim merely recites only an idea of a solution, removing material, and fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished according to the scenario and is considered to be the functional equivalent of “apply it”. Thus, the element is considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “[region][scenario][region]” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “adding thermal element material to the outer surface of the heat-generating component” which in light of the instant specification paragraph 0054 is “an additive manufacturing process”, and amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to implementation into a practical application. Importantly, this element is not considered to constitute a particular machine as it provides no specificity on a machine used to accomplish the task as described. The instant specification, in fact, provides multiple different machines that can accomplish an “additive manufacturing process” in paragraph 0055 (“selective laser melting or selective laser sintering…lamination of material…polymerization, such as photo-polymerization…ion sputtering”) which does not constitute a particular machine. Furthermore, this claim merely recites only an idea of a solution, adding material, and fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished according to the scenario and is considered to be the functional equivalent of “apply it”. Thus, the element is considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 9”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the thermal element material is different from a heat-generating component material of the heat-generating component” describes a detail within the Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception with a manufacturing process. As such it interpreted as an additional element to the Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception and does not amount to implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “[region][scenario]” which lists additional elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “removing heat-generating component material from the outer surface of the heat-generating component and adding thermal element material to the heat-generating component” which in light of the instant specification paragraphs 0053-0054 “a subtractive manufacturing process… an additive manufacturing process” amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to implementation into a practical application. Importantly, this element is not considered to constitute a particular machine as it provides no specificity on a machine used to accomplish the task as described. The instant specification, in fact, provides multiple different machines that can accomplish the subtractive and additive processes in paragraphs 0053 and 0055. Furthermore, this claim merely recites only an idea of a solution, removing and adding material, and fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished according to the scenario and is considered to be the functional equivalent of “apply it”. Thus, the element is considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “[scenario]” which lists additional extra-solution elements to claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the initial channel design includes anastomosing channels” merely specifies an element of the scenario chosen by the abstract idea of a mental process of selecting. It does not constitute implementation into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above, the claim is insignificant pre-solution activity which merely selects a particular data type to use and does not amount to significantly more than the inventive concept. It is the equivalent to “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 1”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein evaluating the [scenario] and changing at least one parameter (i.e., an input value) of the [scenario] based on the evaluated metrics includes using a machine learning model to change the at least one parameter (i.e., a mathematical algorithm to evaluate which numerical value to change)” which is a recitation of a mathematical concept or algorithm which changes input parameters.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirely of the claim recites a mathematical algorithm and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 13”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the machine learning model includes a constructal theory model (i.e., an algorithm or framework to follow)” which is a recitation of a mathematical concept or algorithm.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirely of the claim recites a mathematical algorithm and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “The method of claim 13”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “wherein the machine learning model includes a diffusion limited algorithm (i.e., a type of mathematical algorithm)” which is a recitation of a mathematical concept or algorithm.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirely of the claim recites a mathematical algorithm and does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea which is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A device for thermal management comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: NO. The claim recites “” which does not recite any judicial exception
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: There is no judicial exception and no additional elements.
STEP 2B: There are no judicial exception and no additional elements.
Claim 16 is therefore potentially patent eligible and not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 17, 18, 19 are dependent on claim 16 and do not recite any judicial exception. Therefore claims 16, 17, and 18 are potentially patent eligible and not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A method for manufacturing a processing unit, the method comprising”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “modeling a thermal management demand of a [region] as a [visualization] (EXAMNIER NOTE: heat generation is calculated as a proportion of power consumption (instant specification paragraph 0073); i.e., evaluating and deriving a scenario using a mathematical relationship); selecting an [scenario] for the [region] (i.e., evaluating a starting scenario); evaluating the [scenario], wherein evaluated metrics of the [scenario] include at least [variables A and B] of the [scenario] (i.e., evaluating a scenario based on a numerical value); changing at least one parameter of the [scenario] based on the evaluated metrics to create a [scenario] i.e., judging how to change a scenario); evaluating the [scenario], wherein evaluated metrics of the [scenario] include at least [variables A and B] of the refined channel design (i.e., evaluating a scenario based on a variable); changing at least one parameter of the refined channel design based on the evaluated metrics of the [scenario] to create another [scenario] (i.e., judging how to change a scenario); [region] [scenario]” which is a recitation of a mathematical relationship of deriving a visualization that then informs the mental processes of judging a scenario, evaluating that scenario, and adjusting the scenario. A human being is capable of performing the judgement of selecting a scenario based on numerical metrics. These tasks can be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as a physical aid. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship and a mental process.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “pressure drop and thermal resistance” these merely specify the type of variables to consider while performing a mental evaluation of the scenario. These elements are additional elements of the abstract idea and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “forming at least one thermal element in or on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design”, which in light of the specification (paragraph 0053 “a subtractive manufacturing process”; paragraph 0054 “an additive manufacturing process”) describes a manufacturing process to apply the scenario of a region. This limitation is interpreted as Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites elements like “heat-generating component on an outer surface of the heat-generating component” and “heat generation map” this limitation is interpreted as linking the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as thermal modeling, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodson_2003 (US 2003/0164231 A1) in view of Zhang_2022 (Full-Chip Power Density and Thermal Map Characterization for Commercial Microprocessors Under Heat Sink Cooling).
Claim 1. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “A method for manufacturing a thermal management device (par 0075 “The micro heat exchanger 200 can be fabricated from a variety of materials, including, for example, thin metal sheets, silicon and glass layers, ceramics, and carbon fiber composites…In addition, silicon fabrication methodologies allow precision control of the shape and arrangement of the microchannels, and enables integration of temperature sensors, pressure sensors, and control circuitry into the microchannel structure”; par 0091 “The micro heat exchanger 200 enables design
innovations such as in-situ temperature sensing to minimize the maximum and average chip temperature for a given flowrate, even considering large spatial variations of the heat flux from the device”; par 0270 “ Therefore, local regions 221 in the channel with increased surface area, achieved using plasma etching or other roughening methods; EXAMINER NOTE: Silicon fabrication methodologies, like plasma etching, is a method to manufacture the micro heat exchanger. The micro heat exchanger minimizes chip temperature to thermally manage the chip.), the method comprising: modeling a thermal management demand of a heat-generating component on an outer surface of the heat-generating component (par 0230 “Detailed modeling of the heat transfer within the device 50 to the surface…can all be carried out.”; par 0262-0263 “For example, microprocessors exhibit "hotspots", where the power dissipation is concentrated. FIG. 46 shows the effect of a particular example of spatially-varying heating on the pressure drop and temperature field of the chip…For case 1, 25% of total power is applied at upstream half of the channels and 75% is concentrated at upstream half for case 2”; EXAMINER NOTE: Modeling heat transfer allows for identification of hotspots, thermal demand, of the chip) as a heat generationchannel design based on the heat generation (par 0274 “The computation loop 902 considers the heat distribution of the device as input information, and begins with a user-input channel geometry, shown at 910…The heat input is then added to the simulation, and a computation of the temperature distribution is carried out using the starting values of the heat transfer coefficient throughout the system, shown at step 914….The output of this computation loop is a final prediction of the pressure and temperature distribution for a given heat profile and microchannel geometry.”; par 0275 “The shape perturbation manager 904 computes a "Cost Function" associated with the result of the computed thermal distribution as shown at step 916…The shape perturbation manager also parameterizes the microchannel geometry, shown at step 918 as "compute sensitivities" and introduces small perturbations in the dimensions and locations of the channels, shown at step 920, and re-inserts the new design into the computation loop.”; EXAMINER NOTE: Fig. 52 and the steps above describe an iterative loop. At each successive iteration, the perturbation manager selects a channel geometry (i.e., initial channel design) based on its calculated temperature distribution.);
PNG
media_image1.png
790
1416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
evaluating the initial channel design, wherein evaluated metrics include at least pressure drop and thermal resistance of the channel design (par 0274 “Then, the temperature distribution is used to compute changes in the pressure distribution due to thermally-induced changes in viscosity, and the locations of the beginning
of liquid-vapor phase transitions, and other phenomena that will have an effect on the flow-induced pressure drop, illustrated as repeating of step 912, and the overall temperature distribution of the system.”; par 275 “The shape perturbation manager 904 computes a "Cost Function" associated with the result of the computed thermal distribution… re-inserts the new design into the computation loop. After completion of the computation loop with the new geometry, the cost function is recomputed at step 916, and the relationships between the cost function and the shape perturbations is determined.”; par 0230 “This complete system model allows the designer to introduce variations in the details of the system design, such as changes in the channel geometry (for example, arrangement, spacing, diameter, shape) and to compute the effect of this change on the system performance. Specifically, the calculations determine the overall thermal resistance from the device to ambient“ ; EXAMINER NOTE: Fig. 52 element 902 is the computation loop that allows the shape perturbation manager to evaluate channel geometries (i.e., channel designs) by computing and calculating their pressure drop and thermal resistance); changing at least one parameter of the initial channel design based on the evaluated metrics to create a refined channel design (par 0228 “The CAD tool plays a central role in optimizing microchannel geometries to improve the figures of merit of the resulting heat sink, specifically, to reduce temperature variations and reduce the average thermal resistance”; par 0264 “Using the CAD tool, iterations involving adjustment to the placement of the microchannels and the direction of the flow are typically carried out to move the design iteratively towards an optimal arrangement.”; EXAMINER NOTE: each iteration adjusts (changes) the placement of the channels to reduce average thermal resistance); and forming at least one thermal element in or on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design (par 0056 “ FIGS. 36-37 illustrate formation of microchannels at least partially in the device being cooled.”; EXAMINER NOTE: microchannels are a thermal element. These are formed at least partially in the surface of the heat generating device).”
While Goodson_2003 discusses using a heat distribution for channel design selection, which may properly imply to one ordinary skill in the art the notion of a heat map, it does not explicitly teach a “heat generation map”.
Zhang_2022; however, makes obvious “a heat generation map (Zhang_2022 page 2 “To validate the power density map and the estimated actual effective thermal conductivity of the microprocessors…we use FEM method to compute the thermal map based on the estimated power density map to ensure the computed thermal maps match the measured thermal maps using the FEM method.")”.
Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called microprocessor thermal management. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Goodson_2003 teaches in paragraphs 0274-0275 to have an iterative loop where a channel design for thermal conductivity of a microprocessor is evaluated. Zhang_2022 at page 2 teaches to use a valid thermal map to evaluate the thermal conductivity of a microprocessor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the iterative channel designs from Goodson_2003 with thermal conductivity evaluation method using a valid thermal map from Zhang_2022 for the benefit of evaluating the thermal conductivity of each channel design to obtain the invention as described in the claims.
Claim 16. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “A device for thermal management (par 0091 “The micro heat exchanger 200 enables design innovations such as in-situ temperature sensing to minimize the maximum and average chip temperature for a given flowrate, even considering large spatial variations of the heat flux from the device”) comprising: a heat-generating component having an outer surface (par 0073 “FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of the closed-loop cooling system 100, which includes a micro heat exchanger 200 attached to the heat producing device 50”; par 0230 “Detailed modeling of the heat transfer within the device 50 to the surface…can all be carried out.”); a body connected to the heat-generating component (Fig 1 element 200 is a body connected to the heat producing device 50); a microfluidic cooling volume contacting the outer surface and defined by the outer surface and the body (par 0100 “For single-chip systems, the minimal volume of the micro heat exchanger 200 at the chip backside is critical because it enables miniaturization of the dimensions in the case of electronic system. For a metal, fin-array heat sink, the design can accommodate an enormous volume attached directly to the device 50 backside”; EXAMINER NOTE: the cooling volume is defined by the body of the heat exchanger, for example fins, and the chip backside); and at least one microfluidic thermal element positioned on the outer surface according to a channel design (par 0215 “a micro heat exchanger 200 in which the microchannel 220 is prepared as a sealed structure, which sealed structure is then attached to the device 50 with a thermally-conductive compound”; EXAMINER NOTE: microchannels are a thermal element positioned on top of the device) based at least partially on a heat generation (par 0115 “The arrangement of the microchannels 220 may be adapted to the distribution of the expected heat sources on the device 50, as shown in FIG. 3A….A computer model of the heat sources in the device, combined with calculations of heat transfer into fluids moving in various channel shapes at various velocities, is used to simulate temperature profiles on the device 50, and minimization of these profiles results in an optimized design for the micro heat exchanger 200”; par 0267 ”It is possible to further alter the distribution of the heat transfer in microchannels by increasing the surface area of the walls. Rather than reduce the channel diameter to achieve this effect, it may be possible to introduce additional "fins" into the channel, achieve higher thermal conductance into the fluid without dramatically increasing the pressure drop for a give flowrate. These additional fins increase the thermal contact with the fluid, and can significantly enhance the heat transfer efficiency in regions of the microchannel expected to be in the single-phase condition”; EXAMINER NOTE: The microchannel thermal elements are positioned according to expected heat sources which are found by modeling the heat sources. The micro channels can further have fins that improve thermal transfer to the working fluid).”
While Goodson_2003 discusses using a heat model for thermal element positioning, which may properly imply to one ordinary skill in the art the notion of a heat map, it does not explicitly teach a “heat generation map”.
Zhang_2022; however, makes obvious “a heat generation map (Zhang_2022 page 2 “To validate the power density map and the estimated actual effective thermal conductivity of the microprocessors…we use FEM method to compute the thermal map based on the estimated power density map to ensure the computed thermal maps match the measured thermal maps using the FEM method.")”.
Claim 20. The limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Goodson_2003 makes obvious “A method for manufacturing a processing unit (par 0213 “FIG. 33 further illustrates an embodiment in which the device 50 is depicted as an electrical circuit with bump-bonds forming the electrical connection to a circuit board, as might be the case for a microprocessor. By allowing the fluids to come into direct contact with the device 50, this improves the thermal transport from the device 50 to the fluid because several barriers are removed, and can lead to optimal system performance.”; par 0216 “micro heat exchanger 200 can use a geometric modification to the surface of the device 50 to obtain more surface area contact…by etching
into the backside of the device 50.”; EXAMINER NOTE: the device can be a microprocessor that is manufactured and modified by etching)…evaluating the refined channel design, wherein evaluated metrics of the refined channel design include at least pressure drop and thermal resistance of the refined channel design (par 0274 “Then, the temperature distribution is used to compute changes in the pressure distribution due to thermally-induced changes in viscosity, and the locations of the beginning of liquid-vapor phase transitions, and other phenomena that will have an effect on the flow-induced pressure drop, illustrated as repeating of step 912, and the overall temperature distribution of the system.”; par 275 “The shape perturbation manager 904 computes a "Cost Function" associated with the result of the computed thermal distribution… re-inserts the new design into the computation loop. After completion of the computation loop with the new geometry, the cost function is recomputed at step 916, and the relationships between the cost function and the shape perturbations is determined.”; par 0230 “This complete system model allows the designer to introduce variations in the details of the system design, such as changes in the channel geometry (for example, arrangement, spacing, diameter, shape) and to compute the effect of this change on the system performance. Specifically, the calculations determine the overall thermal resistance from the device to ambient“ ; EXAMINER NOTE: Fig. 52 element 902 is the computation loop that allows the shape perturbation manager to evaluate channel geometries (i.e., channel designs) by computing and calculating their pressure drop and thermal resistance) changing at least one parameter of the refined channel design based on the evaluated metrics of the refined channel design to create another refined channel design (par 0228 “The CAD tool plays a central role in optimizing microchannel geometries to improve the figures of merit of the resulting heat sink, specifically, to reduce temperature variations and reduce the average thermal resistance”; par 0264 “Using the CAD tool, iterations involving adjustment to the placement of the microchannels and the direction of the flow are typically carried out to move the design iteratively towards an optimal arrangement.”); and forming at least one thermal element in or on the outer surface of the die according to the another refined channel design (par 0056 “ FIGS. 36-37 illustrate formation of microchannels at least partially in the device being cooled.” EXAMINER NOTE: microchannels are a thermal element. These are formed at least partially in the surface of the heat generating device).” (EXAMINER NOTE: Claim 20 is substantially the same as claim 1 but includes the additional step of creating another refined channel design. The methodology described in the instant application to create another refined channel design is the same as the initial process of creating the first refined channel design. Goodson_2003 describes an iterative approach to creating a channel design and makes obvious the existence and alteration of multiple channel designs.)
While Goodson_2003 makes obvious heat management for microprocessors and heat producing devices, which may imply to one of ordinary skill in the art a die, does not make obvious a “an outer surface of a die”.
Zhang_2022; however, makes obvious “modeling a thermal management demand of a processing unit on an outer surface of a die of the processing unit as a heat generation map (page 2 “This allows us to take explicit temperature images (thermal maps) of CPU die while the CPU is under load”)”.
Claim 2. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the initial channel design includes an inlet position (par 0212 “FIG. 31, in which fluid enters at a fluid inlet 222 in the upper layer 216 of the microheat exchanger 200”)”
Claim 3. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the initial channel design includes an outlet position (par 0212 “The fluid then exits at a fluid outlet 224 in the first layer 210.”).
Claim 4. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the initial channel design includes a channel length (par 0249 “Optimization involving the variation of the channel shape and its evolution along the length of the channel, the flowrate, and the inlet temperature, to minimize temperature variations considering variations in the applied heat flux is then carried out iteratively by successive perturbations to the geometry of the channels”).”
Claim 5. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the initial channel design includes a channel pitch (par 0233-0234 “The simulation is one-dimensional in the direction along the channel…w is the pitch of one channel.”).”
Claim 6. Zhang_2022 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein modeling a thermal demand of the heat-generating component includes mapping a power consumption map of components of the heat-generating component (page 2 “Then based on the total power of the microprocessor obtained using an online CPU monitoring tool, we develop a novel scheme to generate the true positive only power density map from the measured raw power density map… Then we use FEM method to compute the thermal map based on the estimated power density map”) to the outer surface of the heat-generating component (page 3 “Power map (surface power density distribution) has tight relationship with the temperature distribution”).”
PNG
media_image2.png
362
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein each channel of a plurality of channels of the initial channel design has an equal channel length (Fig 4 elements 220A-1 depicts a design of a heat exchanger with equal length channels).”
Claim 8. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein forming at least one thermal element on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design includes removing die material from the outer surface of the heat-generating component (par 0216 “…other embodiments of the micro heat exchanger 200 can use a geometric modification to the surface of the device 50 to obtain more surface area contact. FIG. 36 shows a microchannel design in which the channels 220 are formed in the backside of the device...FIG. 37 shows a jet array as described above with respect to FIG. 32 that is bonded to a device 50 in which the chamber 278 for the delivery of the jets is formed by etching into the backside of the device 50”)”
Claim 9. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein forming at least one thermal element on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design includes adding thermal element material to the outer surface of the heat-generating component (par 0215 “FIG. 3B illustrated previously, as well as FIGS. 34 and 35, illustrate various embodiments of a micro heat exchanger 200 in which the microchannel 220 is prepared as a sealed structure, which sealed structure is then attached to the device 50 with a thermally-conductive compound”).”
Claim 10. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 9, wherein the thermal element material is different from a heat-generating component material of the heat-generating component (par 0075 “Since many of the devices 50 under consideration are fabricated from silicon, fabrication of the micro heat exchanger 200 from silicon may be advantageous…Alternatively, metal fabrication methods are capable of approaching the required dimensional control, and in certain circumstances offer advantages over silicon, such as low-cost fabrication, high-reliability sealing technology, and compatibility with the thermal requirements of some applications”; par 0114 “The micro-heat exchanger 200 shown in FIG. 1 may be comprised of a microfabricated silicon structure, or of a machined metal structure, or of many other possible materials” ; EXAMINER NOTE: The device can be manufactured from silicon and the micro heat exchanger can be manufactured from a different material, metal).”
Claim 11. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein forming at least one thermal element on the outer surface of the heat-generating component according to the refined channel design includes removing heat-generating component material from the outer surface of the heat-generating component and adding thermal element material to the heat-generating component (par 0216 “…other embodiments of the micro heat exchanger 200 can use a geometric modification to the surface of the device 50 to obtain more surface area contact. FIG. 36 shows a microchannel design in which the channels 220 are formed in the backside of the device and the remainder of the attached structure guides and distributed the fluids to these channels 220. FIG. 37 shows a jet array as described above with respect to FIG. 32 that is bonded to a device 50 in which the chamber 278 for the delivery of the jets is formed by etching into the backside of the device 50”)”
Claim 17. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The device of claim 16, wherein the microfluidic thermal element is a positive thermal element (par 0215 “FIGS. 34 and 35, illustrate various embodiments of a micro heat exchanger 200 in which the microchannel 220 is prepared as a sealed structure, which sealed structure is then attached to the device 50 with a thermally-conductive compound”; EXAMINER NOTE: attached to the device is a positive thermal element).”
Claim 18. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The device of claim 16, wherein the microfluidic thermal element is a negative thermal element (par 0216 “…other embodiments of the micro heat exchanger 200 can use a geometric modification to the surface of the device 50 to obtain more surface area contact. FIG. 36 shows a microchannel design in which the channels 220 are formed in the backside of the device 50, and the remainder of the attached structure guides and distributed the fluids to these channels 220”; EXAMINER NOTE: Formed in the backside is a negative thermal element).”
Claim 19. Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The device of claim 16, further comprising a pump that flows the working fluid to the microfluidic cooling volume (Fig 1 element 300 is a pump; par 0073 “FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of the closed-loop cooling system 100, which includes…a miniature pump 300 for the working fluid”).”
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodson_2003 in view of Zhang_2022 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozguc_2021 (Topology optimization of microchannel heat sinks using a homogenization approach).
Claim 12. The limitations of claim 1 are inherited by claim 12 and are rejected by Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 as described above. Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022, however, does not teach “anastomosing channels”.
PNG
media_image3.png
144
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ozguc_2021; however, makes obvious “wherein the initial channel design includes anastomosing channels (Ozguc_2021 Fig 6 depicts fractal channels that connect to each other; page 6 “The optimizer created a fractal-like design where the liquid is routed to the effective heat transfer features through low-hydraulic-resistance pathways”).”
(EXAMINER NOTE: The fractal pattens described in Ozguc_2021 depict connections between branching channels, which is anastomosing)
Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Ozguc_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called thermal management of microprocessors. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Ozguc_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been Zhang_2022 teaches in page 2 microprocessor hotspot evaluation using a thermal map. Ozguc_2021 teaches in page 5 heat sink optimization creating fractal channels on evaluated hotspots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the thermal map hotspot evaluation method of Zhang_2022 with the fractal heatsink channels of Ozguc_2021 for the benefit of evaluating hotspots and creating fractal channels on the evaluated hotspots to obtain the invention as described in the claims.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodson_2003 in view of Zhang_2022 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fawaz_2022 (Topology optimization of heat exchangers: A review).
Claim 13. The limitations of claim 1 are inherited by claim 13 and are rejected by Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 as described above. Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 does not teach “using a machine learning model to change the at least one parameter”.
Fawaz_2022; however, makes obvious “wherein evaluating the initial channel design and changing at least one parameter of the initial channel design based on the evaluated metrics includes using a machine learning model to change the at least one parameter (page 10 par “As for transport phenomena, the ML has exhibited the ability of predicting their solutions [189-192], due to its high potential of learning from existing data-sets… As for the TO of HXs, in a recent study, a data driven TO based on EA was suggested by Yaji et al. [61] for a heat sink under forced convection. In this research, a variational autoencoder [197] was implemented to perform the crossover operation by generating a new dataset. The ML proved the ability of increasing the TO efficiency by predicting the optimized structures for heat transfer problems with negligible time”; NOTE: ML is machine learning, EA is evolutionary algorithm. This describes the use of machine learning to change parameters (using crossover operations) of heat sink designs).”
Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called thermal management of microprocessors. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been that Zhang_2022 teaches in page 2 heat transfer evaluation of microprocessors using a thermal map. Fawaz_2022 teaches in page 10 using heat transfer solvers to optimize heat sink topology with machine learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the heat transfer evaluation method using thermal maps of Zhang_2022 with the heat transfer machine learning optimization of Fawaz_2022 for the benefit of using a thermal map to evaluate heat transfer for the machine learning model to obtain the invention as described in the claims.
Claim 15. The limitations of claim 13 are inherited by claim 15 and are rejected by Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 as described above. Additionally, Goodson_2003 makes obvious “The method of claim 13, wherein the machine learning model includes a diffusion limited algorithm (Goodson_2003 par 0233 “The simulation numerically solves energy equations for heat conduction in the silicon wall and convection by the fluid, with boundary conditions dictated by the heat loss to the environment. The simulation uses the finite volume method and considers the temperature and pressure dependence of the liquid and vapor properties based on correlations to tabulated data.”).” (EXAMINER NOTE: Goodson_2003 uses an algorithm (i.e., energy equation) for heat diffusion (i.e., heat conduction) that is limited (i.e., boundary conditions constrain the algorithm and the finite volume method limits the area the algorithm operates))
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodson_2003 in view of Zhang_2022 in view of Fawaz_2022 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bornoff_2015 (US 2016/0224699 A1).
Claim 14. The limitations of claim 13 are inherited by claim 14 and are rejected by Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 as described above. Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 does not teach “constructal theory model”.
Bornoff_2015; however, makes obvious “wherein the machine learning model includes a constructal theory model (Bornoff_2015 par 0007 “The advent of 3D printing (additive manufacture) may remove many of these constraints, enabling practical applications of the constructal law to heat sink design. Heat sinks growing through an additive design process may exhibit a superior thermal performance.”).”
Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 and Bornoff_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called thermal management of microprocessors. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Goodson_2003 and Zhang_2022 and Fawaz_2022 and Bornoff_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Fawaz_2022 teaches in page 10 using machine learning to generate optimal heat sink design. Bornoff_2015 teaches in paragraph 0007 using additive manufacturing to create optimal heat sinks using constructal theory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the machine learning heat sink design of Fawaz_2022 with the additive constructal theory of Bornoff_2015 for the benefit of generating and constructing optimally designed heat sinks to obtain the invention as described in the claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Oevelen_2014 (Optimal Heat Sink Design for Liquid Cooling of Electronics) which discusses the manufacture and optimization of heat sinks on microprocessors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (7:30 am - 5:30 pm) ET.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights