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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 14, 16-18, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horvath et al. (US 5,052,481)
Re. claim 1: Horvath discloses a method for cooling at least one object, wherein said method comprises the steps of
forming at least one cavity (between adjacent 43) in a baseplate (40) so that said least one cavity is extending from a connection surface (bottom surface) of said baseplate and into said baseplate, (see fig. 2, 3; col. 9-10)
arranging a turbulator (14, 20 combined) in said at least one cavity,
connecting said at least one object (11) to said connection surface so that said at least one object deforms said turbulator and forces said turbulator (at least portion 22 of 20) into said cavity, and (see fig. 3A, B, E; col. 12)
generating a flow of cooling fluid (air, water, oil) through said cavity to cool said at least one object. (see col. 2, 8, 16)
Re. claim 3: Horvath discloses wherein said at least one object (11) is connected tightly to said baseplate (they are urged together). (see fig. 3E, col. 8)
Re. claim 4: Horvath discloses wherein said turbulator (14, 20) is extending out of said cavity (between adjacent 43) so that said at least one object (11) deforms said turbulator and forces said turbulator into said cavity. (see fig. 3A-B; col. 8)
Re. claim 14: Horvath discloses wherein said at least one object deforms said turbulator so that a height of said turbulator is reduced by between 0,1% and 30%. (see fig. 3A, 3B; col. 15)
Re. claim 16: Horvath discloses a cooling device comprising
a baseplate (40) having at least one cavity (between adjacent 43) extending from a connection surface (bottom surface) of said baseplate and into said baseplate and wherein a cooling fluid channel (34) connects said at least one cavity with a cooling fluid inlet and a cooling fluid outlet (air movement) of said baseplate, (see fig. 2, 3; col. 8)
a turbulator (14, 20 combined) arranged in said at least one cavity, and
at least one object (11) being connected to said connection surface so that said at least one object deforms said turbulator and forces said turbulator into said cavity. (see fig. 3A, B, E; col. 12)
Re. claim 17: Horvath discloses wherein said at least one object deforms said turbulator so that a height of said turbulator is reduced by between 0,1% and 30% when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface. (see fig. 3A, 3B; col. 15)
Re. claim 18: Horvath discloses wherein a height of said turbulator is reduced by at least 0.1 millimeter when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface. (see fig. 3A, 3B; col. 15)
Re. claim 20: Horvath discloses wherein said cooling device further comprises a gasket (97) encircling said at least one cavity. (see fig. 2, 3A; col. 8)
Re. claim 22: Horvath discloses wherein the height of said turbulator (14, 20 combined) is greater than a depth of said at least one cavity (height of fin 43) before said at least one object is connected to said connection surface. (see fig. 3a, 3e)
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.
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) 2, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 21, 23, 24, 31, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvath as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Abeyasekera et al. (US 2014/0204533 A1).
Re. claims 2: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said method further comprises the step of arranging a gasket between said object and said baseplate.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein said method further comprises the step of arranging a gasket (7) between said object (2) and said baseplate (3). (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0025-0026, 0034-0036)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a gasket between the object and the baseplate of Horvath as taught by Abeyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide a double seal between the pressurized coolant and the outside. (see Abeyasekera para. 0034)
Re. claims 5 and 6: Horvath discloses:
when said at least one object (11) is connected to said connection surface (bottom of baseplate), so that said bottom part of said at least one object deforms said turbulator (14, 20) and forces said turbulator into said cavity. (see fig. 3A-B; col. 8)
Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein at least a bottom part of said at least one object is extending into said cavity,
wherein said at least one object comprises a contact face arranged to be connected to said connection surface and wherein said bottom part is protruding from said contact face.
However, Aneyasekera discloses:
wherein at least a bottom part of said at least one object (bottom surface of 10) is extending into said cavity (5),
wherein said at least one object comprises a contact face (bottom surface of 10) arranged to be connected to said connection surface (1) and wherein said bottom part is protruding from said contact face. (see fig. 5; para. 0038-0041)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one object of Horvath with a bottom part that extends into the cavity as taught by Aneyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the attachment stresses of the object during the connection process. (Abeyasekera para. 0041)
Re. claims 7, 24, and 31: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said baseplate comprises at least one connector for connecting said object to said connection surface.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein said baseplate (3) comprises at least one connector (9) for connecting said object (2) to said connection surface. (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0025-0026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a connector to the apparatus of Horvath as taught by Aneyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to hermetically seal the baseplate with the object to be cooled. (Aneyasekera para. 0025)
Re. claim 9: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said at least one object fully covers said at least one cavity when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface.
However, Aneyasekera discloses:
wherein said at least one object (2) fully covers said at least one cavity (cavity in 3) when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface (top surface of 3). (see fig. 2, 4; para. 0035-0041)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the object and cavity of Horvath such that the one object fully covers said at least one cavity as taught by Aneyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to remove some of the mechanical stress associated with the connection structure of the apparatus. (see Aneyasekera para. 0041)
Re. claims 11, 12, 34, and 35: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said at least one object comprises an intermediate plate.
wherein said at least one object comprises heat generating power electronics and wherein said method comprises a step of connecting said intermediate plate to said connection surface and subsequently connecting said power electronics to said intermediate plate.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein said at least one object (12) comprises an intermediate plate (10).
wherein said at least one object comprises heat generating power electronics (semiconductors) and wherein said method comprises a step of connecting said intermediate plate (10) to said connection surface (surface of 3) and subsequently connecting said power electronics to said intermediate plate. (see fig. 2, 4, 5; para. 0002-0005, 0027-0031)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an intermediate plate to Horvath and connect the intermediate plate to said connection surface and connecting the power electronics to said intermediate plate as taught by Abeyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to connect parts of the semiconductor by bonding wires and reduce mechanical stress on the system. (Abeyasekera para. 0022-0023)
Re. claim 13: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said method comprises the step of connecting said intermediate plate to said connection surface by means of soldering.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein said method comprises the step of connecting said intermediate plate to said connection surface by means of soldering. (see para. 0021-0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to soldering the intermediate plate and the connection surface of Horvath as taught by Abeyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to fixedly connect these components to each other. Such a modification would have been a use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and also would have been applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Re. claims 15 and 23: Horvath discloses:
said at least one object (11) deforms said turbulator (14, 20 combined) and forces said turbulator into said at least one cavity (between adjacent 43). (see fig. 3a, 3e; col. 8)
Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein at least a part of said connection surface is sloping downwards towards said at least one cavity so that at least a part of said at least one object is bend in a downward arc, when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein at least a part of said connection surface (distal portion of 1) is sloping downwards towards said at least one cavity (5) so that at least a part of said at least one object is bend in a downward arc, when said at least one object is connected to said connection surface. (see fig. 5; para. 0038-0041)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to Horvath a downward arc at the connection surface and the at least one object as taught by Abeyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce the attachment stresses of the object during the connection process. (Abeyasekera para. 0041)
Re.claim 21: Horvath fails to disclose:
wherein said gasket is arranged in a baseplate groove in said connection surface or in an object grove in said object.
However, Abeyasekera discloses:
wherein said gasket (7) is arranged in a baseplate groove in said connection surface (groove in surface 1) or in an object grove in said object. (see fig. 4; para. 0033-0036)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the gasket of Horvath in a baseplate groove in the connection surface as taught by Abeyasekera. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide a reliable seal between the pressurized fluid and the outside environment. (Abeyasekera para. 0034)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Horvath does not disclose “generating a flow of cooling fluid through said cavity to cool said at least one object.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Horvath discloses a flow of air by teaching “finned structures with air movement dissipating heat from the module.” (see col. 8 ln. 29-30). Also, Horvath discloses a flow of oil by teaching “the grooves provide an escape path for excess oil or other compliant medium and particulate contamination.” (see col. 16 ln. 51-53) Applicant argues, regarding claim 16, that Horvath does not disclose “a cooling fluid channel connects said at least one cavity with a cooling fluid inlet and a cooling fluid outlet of said baseplate.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Horvath discloses a flow of air by teaching “finned structures with air movement dissipating heat from the module.” (see col. 8 ln. 29-30). This flow of air inherently has both a cooling fluid inlet and a cooling fluid outlet of said baseplate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 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 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.
May 30, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights