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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to.
Claim 9 recites, “said flow path” which lacks antecedent basis.
The objections to claims 1-14 are withdrawn in view of the remarks and amendments thereto.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 8 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejection to claim 10 is withdrawn in view of the amendment thereto.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,224,146 in view of Reinhart et al. (US 7,197,819 – hereinafter, “Reinhart”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, claim 17 of the ‘146 reference recites (recitations of the ‘146 reference in parentheses) cold plate for cooling electronics comprising (“a cold plate comprising”): a first side having a cooling mount configured to receive an electronics package (“a first side having a plurality of cooling mounts, each cooling mount configured to receive an electronic package”); and a second side having: an array of extended surfaces limited to a portion opposite of the cooling mount (“and a plurality of arrays of extended surfaces in the flow path…wherein each array of extended surfaces is limited to a second portion of the second side directly opposite the first portion”).
Claim 17 of the ‘146 reference fails to recite an entrance without extended surfaces; wherein said entrance and said array define a flow.
Reinhart, however, teaches these limitations as per the below rejection to claim 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 Reinhart with that of claim 17, such that claim 17 further recites an entrance without extended surfaces; wherein said entrance and said array define a flow, as taught by Reinhart, since doing so would allow for the placement of a flow spreader prior to any fluid being received by the array of extended surfaces.
With respect to claim 2, claim 18 of the ‘146 reference further recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 14, claim 17 of the ‘146 reference further recites Cooling system for electronics in an autonomous vehicle comprising (Cl. 17, verbatim): a radiator including a liquid passage and external fins (“a heat exchanger including a first liquid passage and external fins”); a fan adjacent to said radiator forcing a portion of ambient air past said external fins (“a fan adjacent to the heat exchanger, the fan forcing a portion of ambient air past the external fins”); and a pump configured to move liquid through said liquid passage and said flow path (“a pump to move liquid through the first and second liquid passage”).
Claims 1, 10-11, 13, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,744,051 in view of Reinhart.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, claim 10 of the ‘051 reference recites (recitations of the ‘051 reference in parentheses) cold plate for cooling electronics comprising (“A cold plate for cooling electronics….comprising”): a first side having a cooling mount configured to receive an electronics package (“a first side including:…..a plurality of cooling mounts, each cooling mount configured to receive an electronic package”); and a second side having: an array of extended surfaces limited to a portion opposite of the cooling mount (“a plurality of arrays of extended surfaces in the flow paths, wherein each array of extended surfaces is limited to a second portion of the second side directly opposite the first portion”); and an entrance without extended surfaces (“wherein the entrance region does not contain the extended surfaces for heat transfer”).
Claim 10 of the ‘051 reference fails to recite wherein said entrance and said array define a flow.
Reinhart, however, teaches these limitations as per the below rejection to claim 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 Reinhart with that of claim 17, such that claim 17 further recites wherein said entrance and said array define a flow, as taught by Reinhart, since doing so would allow for a coolant to flow into and through the array of extended surfaces.
With respect to claims 10-11, 15, claim 10 of the ‘051 reference recites the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to recite the limitations of claims 10-11, 15. Reinhart, however, teaches these limitations as per the below rejections to claims 10-11, 15 and It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings with the limitations of claim 10 since doing so would: RE: claims 10 and 15, provide for a desired flow profile within the cold plate; and RE: claim 11, allow for the fluid to be dispersed more evenly across the array.
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 of the ‘051 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calaman.
With respect to claim 1, Calaman teaches (In Figs 1-2, 4-5) cold plate (5) for cooling electronics comprising: a first side (Bottom side of 5) having a cooling mount (Bottom side of 23) configured to receive an electronics package; and a second side having: an array of extended surfaces (25 or 60) limited to a portion opposite of the cooling mount (Extended surfaces 25 are limited to only the top side of 23 which is opposite to the bottom side of 23 which forms the cooling mount, see Figs 1-2); and an entrance without extended surfaces (See Fig A below); wherein said entrance and said array define a flow.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Calaman further teaches that the extended surfaces (25) are staggered round pins (See Fig 1, see also, Col. 3, ll. 59-62, “Each individual pin 25 is preferably cylindrically shaped, but may have any number of other cross-sectional shapes including, but not limited to circular, rectilinear, elliptical, generally polygonal, etc.”).
With respect to claim 3, Calaman further teaches that the extended surfaces (25) are staggered oval pins (Col. 3, ll. 59-62, “Each individual pin 25 is preferably cylindrically shaped, but may have any number of other cross-sectional shapes including, but not limited to circular, rectilinear, elliptical, generally polygonal, etc.” (emphasis added)).
With respect to claim 4, Calaman further teaches that the extended surfaces (60) are straight fins with breaks in the fins (See Fig 6, where the breaks in the fins are provided at the pins 51).
With respect to claims 6. Calaman further teaches that the second side has a second flow that is parallel to the flow (See Fig A above).
With respect to claim 7, Calaman further teaches that the flow and the second flow have an equal number of extended surfaces (In Fig A above the flow is defined by 5 extended surfaces (Three above the flow arrow and two below), and the second flow is defined by 5 extended surfaces (Three above the second flow arrow and two below)).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Calaman teaches cold plate (5) for cooling electronics comprising: a first side (Bottom side of 5) having a cooling mount (Bottom side of 23) configured to receive an electronics package; and a second side having: an array of extended surfaces (See Fig B below) limited to a portion opposite of the cooling mount (Extended surfaces 25 are limited to only the top side of 23 which is opposite to the bottom side of 23 which forms the cooling mount, see Figs 1-2); and an entrance without extended surfaces (See Fig B below); wherein said entrance and said array define a flow (See Fig A above), wherein: said second side has a second array of extended surfaces (See Fig B below); and said flow path narrows between said array of extended surfaces and said second array of extended surfaces (See Fig B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinhart et al. (US 7,197,819 – hereinafter, “Reinhart”).
With respect to claim 1, Reinhart teaches (In Fig 1) cold plate for cooling electronics comprising: a first side (Bottom side of 14 shown in Fig 1) having a cooling mount configured to receive an electronics package (30); and a second side (Top side of 14) having: an array of extended surfaces (46) limited to a portion opposite of the cooling mount (See Figs 1-2); and an entrance without extended surfaces (See Fig C below); wherein said entrance and said array define a flow.
PNG
media_image3.png
530
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Reinhart further teaches that the extended surfaces (46) are staggered round pins (See Fig 1).
With respect to claim 6, Reinhart further teaches that the second side has a second flow that is parallel to the flow (See Fig 1, the flow is defined by the left set of extended surfaces on 14 and the second flow is defined by the right set of extended surfaces 14 allowing for parallel flows).
With respect to claim 10, Reinhart further teaches that the entrance is configured for increasing a front of said array (See Fig C above).
With respect to claim 11, Reinhart further teaches that the entrance comprises a fairing (77).
With respect to claim 13, Reinhart further teaches that said entrance is triangular (See Fig C above).
With respect to claim 15, Reinhart further teaches that said entrance is configured for encouraging flow sideways relative to the flow (As in the present invention, the entrance is a triangular region before a set of pin fins and thus will likewise encourage a sideways flow relative to the flow).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calaman in view of Romero et al. (US 5,915,463 – hereinafter, “Romero”).
With respect to claim 5, Calaman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Calaman further teaches that the extended surfaces are staggered arrays (See Fig 2, within the main array of extended surfaces there are smaller arrays of staggered extended surfaces). And while Calaman does teach using different shapes for the extended arrays, Calaman fails to specifically teach or suggest there are different molded shapes of extended surfaces that make up the arrays.
Romero, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a cold plate (51) with extended surfaces (54, 55, 56, 49, 50, etc) which are made up of different shapes.
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 Romero with that of Calaman, such that the staggered arrays of extended surfaces of Calaman are made of different shapes, as taught by Romero, since doing so would allow for a user to achieve a desired flow within the flow path.
Regarding the limitation requiring the shapes be molded, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhart in view of Romero.
With respect to claim 12, Reinhart teaches the limitations of claim 11 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the fairing defines a cylinder with an axis perpendicular to said cold plate.
Romero, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a cold plate (11, 12) with a fairing (56) which defines a cylinder with an axis perpendicular to said cold plate (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 Romero with that of Reinhart, such that the shape of the fairing in Reinhart is changed to be a cylinder with an axis perpendicular to the cold plate, as taught by Romero, since doing so would provide a fairing which has more volume compared with the one used by Reinhart allowing for the fairing to better move heat into a liquid within the cold plate.
Further, it is noted that, in the present case, the only difference between the fairing of Reinhart and the claimed fairing is the shape of the fairing and mere changes in shape have been held to be obvious2.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calaman in view of French, Jr. et al. (US 9,301,421 – hereinafter, “French”).
With respect to claim 14, Calaman teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a cooling system which comprises a radiator including a liquid passage and external fins; a fan adjacent to said radiator configured for forcing a portion of ambient air past said external fins; and a pump configured to move liquid through said liquid passage and said flow path.
French, however, teaches (In Figs 1-2) a cold plate (102) which is part of a larger heat transfer system including a radiator (108) including a liquid passage and external fins; a fan (106, 110) adjacent to the radiator configured for forcing a portion of ambient air past said external fins and a pump (112/114) configured to move liquid through said liquid passage and a flow path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of French with that of Calaman, such that the cold plate of Calaman is part of a larger heat transfer system including a radiator, a pump, and a closed loop delivery system, as taught by French, since doing so would allow for the heat that is collected in the cold plate of Calaman to be moved and rejected at a location remote from the cold plate.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “The '626 pat. does not teach or suggest a cold plate for cooling electronics comprising … an array of extended surfaces ... and an entrance without extended surfaces ... [that] define a flow, hence not all limitations of claim 1 as amended.” (Present remarks page 5) the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the above rejection to claim 1 where it is detailed how Calaman teaches the amended limitations of claim 1. The Examiner further notes the above rejection to claim 1 in view of Reinhart which is likewise believed to teach all the limitations therein.
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 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)
2 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
