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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s 1/16/2026 amendment.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “the helical shaped flow paths are formed in a plurality of rows that are spaced apart” (emphasis added) (lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite. since the claims previously set forth “helix center axes at helix centers of the helical shaped flow paths are formed in only one row in the stacking direction” (emphasis added) (claim 1, lines 9-10) it is unclear if the claims require one or more rows.
Claim 5 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jahn et al. (US 2003/0103879).
Regarding claim 1, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink having a fin portion in which a plurality of plates (1-5) are stacked in a stacking direction (Figures 1, 1a, 1b), where a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink is a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction (Figures 1, 1a, 1b), each of the plates has a plurality of holes (6), in a state in which the plates are stacked in the stacking direction, flow paths formed by the holes of the plates being connected to each other in the stacking direction and the flowing direction have helical shapes toward the flowing direction (Figures 1-2: Holes of adjacent plates alternate orientation, thereby defining a spiral/helical flow along the flowing direction of the cooling liquid), and helix center axes at helix centers of the helical shaped flow paths are formed in only one row in the stacking direction (i.e. there is one row of flow paths) (Figures 1, 1a, 1b).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the fin portion has a plurality of kinds of the plates with different patterns of the holes (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the helical shaped flow paths are formed in a plurality of rows that are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and the flowing direction (Annotated Figures 1, 1a, 1b. See also Figures 8 and 9 for various configurations of spaced apart rows of flow paths).
Regarding claim 5, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the flow paths are formed such that the flow paths adjacent in the direction are partially connected to each other (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the plates adjacent in the stacking direction are formed by being pressed into close contact with each other in the stacking direction (Figures 1 and 1b).
Note: The claimed phrase “formed by being pressed into close contact” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the apparatus is assembled by pressing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where a joined portion is formed at parts where the plates adjacent in the stacking direction contact with each other (Figures 1, 1a, 1b).
Regarding claim 12, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the plates are each formed such that a shortest distance between the holes adjacent to each other of the plurality of holes is not less than a thickness of the plate (Figures 1-3: There exists at least two adjacent holes that are spaced apart from each other at a distance that is greater than a plate thickness).
Regarding claim 19, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the helical shaped flow paths are formed in a plurality of rows that are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and the flowing direction (Annotated Figures 1, 1a, 1b).
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.
Claims 3, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahn et al. (US 2003/0103879), and further in view of Sugito et al. (US 2004/0168447).
Claims 3, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahn et al. (US 2003/0103879), and further in view of Sugito et al. (US 2004/0168447).
Regarding claim 3, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above. While Jahn et al. discloses that the heat sink comprises a plurality of plates (Figures 1-10) and a plurality of patterns (Figures 3a-3i), Jahn et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose a particular configuration having of a particular number of plates in combination with a particular number of patterns.
Sugito et al. teaches a heat sink, comprising at least: a plurality of plates (102, 120, 130, and 102) defining a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink (Figures 1-4) and a plurality of patterns (Figured 5a-7), where there is a total number of the plates N (Figured 5a-7: There are N=11 plates), where there is a number of kinds of patterns (Figured 5a-7: There are 5 kinds of patterns). While Sugito et al. fail(s) to explicitly disclose that -in a case where N is an odd number- a number of kinds of the patterns is ((N- 1)/2)+1, or -in a case where N is an even number- a number of kinds of the patterns is N/2, Sugito et al. acknowledges that an area of one or more heat exchange regions (150) that are comprised by the plurality of plates is related to a heat flux of the heat exchanger (Paragraph 16, 19, 153, and, 165). Therefore, a ratio of a number plates relative a number of kind of patters of the plates is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that increasing a number of heat exchanger plates increases a total area available for heat transfer (or vice versa). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a ratio of plates to patterns falls within a range, were disclosed in the prior art by Sugito et al., it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure a plurality of plates as disclosed by Jahn et al. with a ratio of plates to patterns as taught by Sugito et al. to improve heat transfer capacity of a heat sink by configuring the heat sink with an amount of surface area that is compatible with one or more devices to be cooled since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Specifically, and in the instant case, removing one plate 130a of a plurality of plates 130a plates and one plate 130b of a plurality of plates 130b from Sugito et al. results in N=9 and types of patterns=5, which satisfies the claimed limitation “where N is an odd number- a number of kinds of the patterns is ((N- 1)/2)+1”.
Regarding claim 6, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above. However, Jahn et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the heat sink is configured to cool a plurality of heat generation bodies.
Sugito et al. teaches a heat sink, comprising at least: a plurality of plates (102, 120, 130, 102) defining a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink (Figures 1-4), where a plurality of heat generation bodies (10) (Figure 4 and Paragraph 146) are configured to be mounted to the heat sink (Figure 4), and flow paths (150) are formed in only areas into which heat is transferred from the respective heat generation bodies (Figures 3-4). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the heat sink as disclosed by Jahn et al. to cool a plurality of heat generation bodies as taught by Duong et al. to improve heat sink versatility and industrial applicability by enabling the heat sink to cool a variety of heat sources including fluids and/or heat generating elements.
Note: It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), there being no differentiating structure recited.
Regarding claim 20, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above, where the flow paths are formed in a plurality of rows that are spaced apart from each other in a perpendicular direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and the flowing direction (Annotated Figures 1, 1a, 1b).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahn et al. (US 2003/0103879), and further in view of Duong et al. (US 2019/0315501).
Regarding claim 9, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above. While Jahn et al. discloses that the plates are joined by soldering (Paragraph 84), Jahn et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the plates are joined by brazing.
Duong et al. teaches a heat sink, comprising at least: a plurality of plates (104, 102) defining a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink (Paragraph 38), where the plates are joined by brazing (Paragraph 33). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the plurality of plates as disclosed by Jahn et al. to be joined together by brazing as taught by Duong et al. to improve heat exchanger safety and reliability by bonding a plurality of plates together with a high temperature type of bond.
Regarding claim 10, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above. While Jahn et al. discloses that the plates are joined by welding (Paragraph 40), Jahn et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the plates are joined by diffusion welding.
Duong et al. teaches a heat sink, comprising at least: a plurality of plates (104, 102) defining a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink (Paragraph 38), where the plates are joined by diffusion welding (Paragraph 33). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the plurality of plates as disclosed by Jahn et al. to be joined together by diffusion welding as taught by Duong et al. to improve heat exchanger safety and reliability by integrally bonding a plurality of plates together to define a monolithic heat exchange structure.
Regarding claim 11, Jahn et al. discloses a heat sink as discussed above. While Jahn et al. discloses that the plates are joined by welding (Paragraph 40), Jahn et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the plates are joined by friction stir welding.
Duong et al. teaches a heat sink, comprising at least: a plurality of plates (104, 102) defining a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink (Paragraph 38), where the plates are joined by friction stir welding (Paragraph 33). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the plurality of plates as disclosed by Jahn et al. to be joined together by friction stir welding as taught by Duong et al. to improve heat exchanger safety and reliability by integrally bonding a plurality of plates together to define a monolithic heat exchange structure.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments on page 7, lines 1-10:
Applicant’s statements regarding the status of the application are noted.
Regarding the arguments on page 7, lines 11-16:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112 rejections of record. However, the amendment appears to introduce new indefiniteness.
Regarding the arguments on page 7, line 17 to page 9, line 21:
Applicant alleges that Jahn does not teach or disclose a helical flow channel in that Jahn discloses a flow channel that is vertically stacked and includes three stacked plates. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is asserted Jahn discloses helical shaped flow paths as claimed. As discussed in the 35 USC 102 rejections as discussed above, Jahn discloses a heat sink comprising at least: a plurality of plates (1-5) stacked in a stacking direction (Figures 1, 1a, 1b), where a flowing direction of a cooling liquid introduced into the heat sink is a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction (Figures 1, 1a, 1b), each of the plates has a plurality of holes (6), where flow paths formed by the holes of the plates being connected to each other in the stacking direction (Figures 1-2), and where the flowing direction have helical shapes toward the flowing direction (Figures 1-2: Holes of adjacent plates alternate orientation, thereby defining a spiral/helical flow along the flowing direction of the cooling liquid). Specifically, the flow paths are helical due to alternating orientations of the holes necessitating a zig-zag (i.e. helical) flow along the flowing direction.
Applicant’s argument is also unclear as the disclosed invention also appears to comprise a flow channel that is vertically stacked and includes a plurality of stacked plates (e.g. Figure 3), where the instant claims do not appear to recite a configuration or structure of plates with holes that differs from the plates with holes as disclosed by Jahn.
Applicant also alleges that Jahn does not teach or disclose a helical flow path in that Jahn is silent with regard to any spiral flow channel. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Jahn need not explicitly disclose that the flow paths are helical, only that the flow paths have a structure that results or necessitates helical flow paths. As discussed above, Jahn discloses helical flow paths in the same sense that the claimed invention has helical flow paths.
Regarding the arguments on page 9, line 22 to page 10-13:
Applicant alleges that Jahn does not teach or disclose helical flow paths that are arranged in rows that are spaced apart from each other. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection is clarified to include annotated figures and clarified as to how Jahn discloses helical flow paths that are arranged in rows that are spaced apart from each other.
Conclusion
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 JASON N THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/JASON N THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763