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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. US 20180213677 A1 in view of Nishiura US 2010/0172091 Al.
Re claim 1, WU et al. teach a cooling device comprising: a heat absorbing member (2) including a first surface (21) to which an object (8) to be cooled is to be attached and a second surface (22) opposite to the first surface; a plurality of heat radiating fins (23) provided on the second surface of the heat absorbing member, the plurality of heat radiating fins being arranged along a first direction, the plurality of heat radiating fins each being extending in a second direction intersecting with
the first direction (fig 3b); and a casing (7, 3) attached to a second surface of the heat absorbing member to cover the plurality of heat radiating fins, wherein the casing includes: an inflow port (51) into which a coolant flows, an outflow port (61) from which a coolant flows out,
an upstream flow path (5) communicating with the inflow port and facing top portions of the plurality of heat radiating fins,
a downstream flow path (24, area enclosed by 72, annotated fig) communicating with the outflow port, extending in the first direction, and facing end portions in the second direction of the plurality of heat radiating fins, wherein the outflow port is provided at an end portion on one side in the first direction of the casing,
wherein a flow path cross-sectional area in the first direction of the downstream flow path increases with distance from the outflow port (noting both increases and decreases along exit path, figs 3),
WU et al. fail to explicitly teach first and second fin details.
Nishiura teach wherein the plurality of heat radiating fins includes a first heat radiating fin (annotated fig) and a second heat radiating fin (annotated fig) that is closer to the outflow port than the first heat radiating fin, and wherein the flow path cross-sectional area of the downstream flow path at the first heat radiating fin is larger than the flow path cross-sectional area of the downstream flow path at the second heat radiating fin (fig 6) to provide cooing with ideal pressurization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include first and second fin details as taught by Nishiura in the WU et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for inverter cooling.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
405
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, WU et al. teach wherein the downstream flow path includes a first downstream flow path (potions in 72) that faces end portions on one side in the second direction of the plurality of heat radiating fins, and a second downstream flow path (portion in 6) that faces end portions on another side of the plurality of heat radiating fins, and wherein the casing further includes a connection flow path connecting the first and second downstream flow paths (noting three dimensional areas which create flow paths faces all directions).
Re claim 3, WU et al. teach wherein the second surface of the heat absorbing member is partially exposed to the first downstream flow path, the second downstream flow path, and the connection flow path (fins and edges of top case covers portions and other portions partially exposed naturally exposed to paths which are fiducially connected to each other).
Re claim 4, WU et al. teach wherein the upstream flow path faces a central portion in the second direction at the top portions of the plurality of fins (noting three dimensional areas which create flow paths faces all directions, and thus any portions of the fins).
Re claim 5, WU et al. teach wherein the top portions of the plurality of fins are partially exposed to the downstream flow path (noting 72 portions open one side up of the fins for more exposure to downstream flow path and thus with the relative exposure one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the entire set to be partially exposed).
Re claim 6, WU et al. teach wherein the inflow port is provided at the end portion on one side in the first direction of the casing in a state of being side by side with the outflow port (noting all the ports are so close with the tapering, figs 3, such that the broad limitations “provided at” are met).
Re claim 7, WU et al. teach wherein at least one of a height and a width of a flow path cross section in the first direction of the downstream flow path increases with distance from the outflow port (figs 3, see the rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that WU et al. fails to teach an “wherein the plurality of heat radiating fins includes a first heat radiating fin and a second heat radiating fin that is closer to the outflow port than the first heat radiating fin, and wherein the flow path cross-sectional area of the downstream flow path at the first heat radiating fin is larger than the flow path cross-sectional area of the downstream flow path at the second heat radiating fin”. However, the scope of the claim 1 has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on NEW Nishiura to teach the recitation (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2005/0178531 Al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763