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 .
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, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/24/2024 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Housing is provided with a braided layer on an outer surface of the housing as in claim 8 (Note that claim 8 depends from claim 7 and claim 7 is referring to the housing (131) of the floating component (130). The drawings fail to show the housing (131) of the floating component (130) including the braided layer, as claimed).
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kikuchi et al. (US 4,712,158 – hereinafter, “Kikuchi”).
With respect to claim 1, Kikuchi teaches (In Figs 4-5) a heat dissipation apparatus, comprising: a first cooling plate (30), provided with a through hole (32) arranged to be connected to an inlet pipe (22a) and an outlet pipe (22b, see Fig 4); a second cooling plate (38c), with a heat dissipation cavity (Open space between 38c and 34 and surrounded by 38b) formed between the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate and in communication with the through hole (See Fig 5); and a retractable floating component (38b), connected to the second cooling plate (38c) for floating heat dissipation of the second cooling plate.
With respect to claim 2, Kikuchi further teaches that the floating component (38b) is connected to the first cooling plate (34, at 38a) and the second cooling plate (38c), and arranged on at least one side of the heat dissipation cavity (See Fig 5).
With respect to claim 5, Kikuchi further teaches wherein the first cooling plate is provided with a protruding portion (See Fig A below), and a first groove (See Fig A below) in a position corresponding to the protruding portion, the through hole (32) is provided in the protruding portion in a position corresponding to the first groove (See Fig A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Kikuchi further teaches that one end of the floating component is connected to the protruding portion (Via 38a) and the other end of the floating component is connected to a first surface (Top surface) of the second cooling plate (38c, see Fig 5).
With respect to claim 9, Kikuchi further teaches that the floating component (38b) is provided surrounding the perimeter of the heat dissipation cavity (37, see Fig 6).
With regard to claim 10, even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process1. In the present case, regardless of how the ends of the floating component are attached to the plates (Claim 10 requires them to be welded), since the product of claim 2 is the same as the product disclosed by Kikuchi, as per the above rejection to claim 2, the claim is unpatentable.
With respect to claim 14, Kikuchi teaches (In Figs 4-5) an electronic device (1, 2), comprising a heat dissipation apparatus, wherein the heat dissipation apparatus comprises: a first cooling plate (30), provided with a through hole (32) arranged to be connected to an inlet pipe (22a) and an outlet pipe (22b, see Fig 4); a second cooling plate (38c), with a heat dissipation cavity (Open space between 38c and 34 and surrounded by 38b) formed between the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate and in communication with the through hole (See Fig 5); and a retractable floating component (38b), connected to the second cooling plate (38c) for floating heat dissipation of the second cooling plate.
Claims 1, 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Malouin et al. (US 2022/0117115 – hereinafter, “Malouin”).
With respect to claim 1, Malouin teaches (In Fig 4) a heat dissipation apparatus, comprising: a first cooling plate (401), provided with a through hole (408, 409) arranged to be connected to an inlet pipe (303) and an outlet pipe (412, see Fig 4); a second cooling plate (402), with a heat dissipation cavity (404) formed between the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate and in communication with the through hole (See Fig 4); and a retractable floating component (302), connected to the second cooling plate (402, see Fig 4) for floating heat dissipation of the second cooling plate (Malouin discloses that the retractable floating component (302) is a TIM and further teaches that, “This TIM is commonly an elastomeric pad” (¶ 0036), which means the TIM (302) acts as a retractable floating component, as claimed).
With respect to claim 3, Malouin further teaches that the heat dissipation cavity (404) is provided on a first surface (Upper surface) of the second cooling plate (402), and the floating component (302) is provided on a second surface (Bottom surface) of the second cooling plate (402) opposite to the first surface (See Fig 4).
With regard to claim 12, even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process1. In the present case, regardless of how the floating component is attached to the second surface (Claim 12 requires it to be welded), since the product of claim 12 is the same as the product disclosed by Kikuchi, as per the above rejection to claim 3, the claim is unpatentable.
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, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Novotny (US 5,206,791).
With respect to claim 4, Kikuchi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the second cooling plate is provided with heat dissipation teeth on a first surface of the second cooling plate in the dissipation cavity, and has flow channels formed between gaps of the heat dissipation teeth and in communication with the through hole.
Novotny, however teaches (In Fig 2) wherein a second cooling plate (11) is provided with heat dissipation teeth (20) on a first surface (Top surface) of the second cooling plate in a dissipation cavity, and has flow channels formed between gaps of the heat dissipation teeth (See Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Novotny with that of Kikuchi, such that, in Kikuchi, the second cooling plate is provided with heat dissipation teeth on a first surface of the second cooling plate in the dissipation cavity, and has flow channels formed between gaps of the heat dissipation teeth, as taught by Novotny, since doing so would increase heat transfer between any electronic device being cooled by the second cooling plate and the fluid within the heat dissipation cavity. Note that when the second cooling plate of Kikuchi is modified to include the heat dissipation teeth as taught by Novotny, then the flow channels formed by the gaps would be in communication with the through hole of Kikuchi, as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouin in view of Zhu et al. (US 2010/0157541 – hereinafter, “Zhu”).
With respect to claim 7, Malouin teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the floating component comprises a retractable housing, and an elastic element arranged in the housing, two ends of the elastic element are connected to two inner sides of the housing, respectively.
Zhu, however, teaches wherein a floating component comprises a retractable housing (11 and 12), and an elastic element (13, ¶ 0020, “the fins 13 can deform elastically”) arranged in the housing, two ends of the elastic element are connected to two inner sides of the housing, respectively (See Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu with that of Malouin such that, in Moulin the floating component comprises a retractable housing, and an elastic element arranged in the housing, two ends of the elastic element are connected to two inner sides of the housing, respectively, as taught by Zhu, since doing so would allow for the floating component of Malouin to have better elasticity compared to just a thermal pad. This may allow for the floating component to be compressed and released multiple times without losing elasticity over time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouin in view of Zhu and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2012/0162921 – hereinafter, “Wu”).
With respect to claim 8, Malouin as modified by Zhu teaches the limitations of claim 7 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the housing is provided with a braided layer on an outer surface of the housing.
Wu, however, teaches a layer (116) is provided with a braided layer (112, ¶ 0026, “In the present invention, the thermal conducting area 119 of the core layer 112 may be a braided layer”) on an outer surface of the layer (116, see Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wu with that of Zhu such that the housing of Zhu is provided with a braided layer on an outer surface of the housing, as taught by Wu, since doing so would provide for better heat transfer away from the housing as compared to not having a braided layer since, as disclosed by Wu, the braided layer has high thermal conductivity and will facilitate better heat transfer to the second cooling plate of Malouin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouin in view of Han et al. (US 2018/0204783 – hereinafter, “Han”).
With respect to claim 11, Malouin teaches the limitations of claim 3 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the second cooling plate is provided with a second groove in the second surface, in which the floating component is embedded.
Han, however, teaches (In Fig 21) wherein a cooling plate (1010) is provided with a second groove in a second surface (Bottom surface), in which a heat dissipating component (1135) is embedded (See Fig 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Han with that of Malouin, such that, in Moulin the second cooling plate is provided with a second groove in the second surface, in which the floating component is embedded, as taught by Han, since doing so would reduce the height of the heat dissipation apparatus.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Novotny and further in view of Song et al. (CN 212851558 – hereinafter, “Song”).
With respect to claim 13, Kikuchi as modified by Novotny teaches the limitations of claim 4 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a retractable elastic sheet, of which one end is connected to the heat dissipation teeth and the other end is connected to the first cooling plate.
Song, however, teaches (In Fig 2) a retractable elastic sheet (8), of which one end (Bottom end) is connected (thermally) to heat dissipation teeth (Vertical pillars of 6) and the other end (Top end) is connected to a first cooling plate (10, see Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Song with that of Kikuchi as modified by Novotny such that, in modified Kikuchi includes a retractable elastic sheet, of which one end is connected to the heat dissipation teeth and the other end is connected to the first cooling plate, as taught by Song, since doing so would allow for the heat dissipation teeth to be in contact with the first cooling plate thus allowing for heat to flow from a component, into the second cooling plate, into the teeth, into the elastic sheet and finally into the first cooling plate thus enhancing the thermal cooling of the heat dissipation apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,524,348 to Chen et al which teaches a floating liquid cooling device used to cool electronics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
1 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Prosecution Insights