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 .
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 “a plurality of solid-to-liquid (SL) PCMs incorporated into the SS MP PCM” (claim 25) 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
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) 1-7, 9-10, 14-15, 22, 24, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agostini et al. US 2013/0075076 Al.
Re claim 1, Agostini et al. teach a heat exchange structure comprising: a thermally-conductive material (3 or alternatively 3 and 10) comprising: (i) a heat receiving section (4) configured to be in contact with a heat source (para 14) so as to receive thermal energy from the heat source, and (ii) a thermal energy spreading section (12) configured to pull thermal energy away from the heat receiving section and distribute the pulled thermal energy into and/or throughout the entire heat exchange structure;
and a solid state (SS) Martensitic transformation (MT) phase change material (PCM) (11, paras 19-20), in contact with and surrounding the thermally-conductive material (para 18, noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘surround’ is
to extend around the margin or edge of : encircle), configured to readily undergo a solid-solid martensitic transformation from one crystalline structure to another different crystalline structure during a change in temperature in the normal and/or anticipated operating temperatures of the distributed thermal energy from the heat receiving section.
Re claim 2, Agostini et al. teach wherein the heat receiving section is sized to conform to the outer dimensions of the heat source (figs, noting the “the heat receiving section” will naturally be considered the “section” immediate and conforming to the “one or more electric components that require cooling” para 14).
Re claim 3, Agostini et al. teach wherein the thermal energy spreading section comprises a plurality of thermal conductivity pathways (annotated fig, the first instance where 3 is the “material” of claim 1, dotted line is on 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively Re claim 3, Agostini et al. teach wherein the thermal energy spreading section comprises a plurality of thermal conductivity pathways (noting the fins add multiple thermal pathways).
Re claim 4, Agostini et al. teach wherein the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section comprises dendrites, lattices, or periodic structures (10) which penetrate into and/or permeate through the SSMT PCM (figs).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected since claim 4 only requires the second material (, lattices, or periodic structures) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 4, Agostini et al. teach the , lattices, or periodic structures.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected since claim 4 only requires the second material (, lattices, or periodic structures) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 4, Agostini et al. teach the , lattices, or periodic structures.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected since claim 4 only requires the second material (, lattices, or periodic structures) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 4, Agostini et al. teach the , lattices, or periodic structures.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected since claim 4 only requires the second material (, lattices, or periodic structures) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 4, Agostini et al. teach the , lattices, or periodic structures.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected since claim 4 only requires the second material (, lattices, or periodic structures) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 4, Agostini et al. teach the , lattices, or periodic structures.
Re claim 14, Agostini et al. teach wherein the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section extend in two or three dimensions (noting the structure is three dimensional).
Re claim 15, Agostini et al. teach further comprising: a heat source which generates thermal energy (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 22, Agostini et al. teach a plurality of channels (5, 6) provided in the SS MP PCM for flowing a fluid therethrough.
Re claim 24, Agostini et al. teach the fluid comprises air, water, hydrofluorocarbon, alcohol-derived solvent, metal or polymer in liquid state, or super-critical CO2 (noting vapor naturally has air present).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the fluid comprises air, water, hydrofluorocarbon, alcohol-derived solvent, metal or polymer in liquid state, or super-critical CO2” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 34, Agostini et al. teach wherein the percentage of the thermally-conductive material in the heat exchange structure, on a volumetric basis, comprises five to fifty percent (figs).
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) 16, 18-20, 25-26, 28, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Miers et al. US 2020/0400386 Al.
Re claim 16, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach a chip.
Miers et al. teach the heat source is a chip or integrated circuit (claim 20) to use heat dissipating for chip cooling .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a chip as taught by Miers et al. in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for the apparatus of the primary invention to cool a chip from a combo finned PCM device.
Re claim 18, Agostini et al., as modified, teach the heat source is a passive or active electronic component (see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 19, Agostini et al., as modified, teach the passive or active electronic component is a standalone element (noting the circuit is considered to be stand alone naturally by having its circuit on itself, and stand alone does not add structure per the claim or spec; see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 20, Agostini et al., as modified, teach wherein the passive or active electronic component is a sub-element of a chip or integrated circuit (noting the claim limitations are naturally met since a chip/IC will have at least a portion that generate heat and would be considered the sub element which is the heat generating portion; see the rejection of claim 16 ).
Re claim 25, Agostini et al. teach a plurality of solid-to-liquid (SL) PCMs incorporated into the SS MP PCM (para 16).
Re claim 26, Agostini et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the SL PCMs are at least one hundred nm across. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the SL PCMs are at least one hundred nm across, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 28, Agostini et al. teach wherein neither of the crystalline structures requires physical deformation to achieve the transformation (noting no shell is required for liquid transformation and the transformation does not deform the fins).
Re claim 36, Agostini et al. teach wherein the heat exchange structure is a heat pipe, vapor chamber, or other high-effective-conductivity structure (para 16).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Lin US 20210136949 A1.
Re claim 16, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach a chip.
Lin teach the heat source is a chip or integrated circuit (para 16) to use heat dissipating for chip cooling .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a chip as taught by Lin in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for the apparatus of the primary invention to cool a chip from a combo finned PCM device.
Re claim 17, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach a chip.
Lin teach the heat source connects to heat receiving section of the thermally-conductive material via a press fit, chemical bond, adhesive, and/or solder to use heat dissipating for heat source connection cooling .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a chip as taught by Lin in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for to reduce thermal contact resistance between the components.
Re claim 18, Agostini et al., as modified, teach the heat source is a passive or active electronic component (see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 19, Agostini et al., as modified, teach the passive or active electronic component is a standalone element (noting the circuit is considered to be stand alone naturally by having its circuit on itself, and stand alone does not add structure per the claim or spec; see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 20, Agostini et al., as modified, teach wherein the passive or active electronic component is a sub-element of a chip or integrated circuit (noting the claim limitations are naturally met since a chip/IC will have at least a portion that generate heat and would be considered the sub element which is the heat generating portion; see the rejection of claim 16 ).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Machida US 20230269912 A1.
Re claim 21, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach a plating.
Machida teach having a plating on one or both of top and bottom surfaces thereof (para 58) to add a nickel-plating film to main surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plating as taught by Machida in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for corrosion protection.
Claim(s) 23, 29, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al..
Re claim 23, Agostini et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the channels are at least ten nm across. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the channels are at least ten nm across, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 29, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the thermally- conductive material has a thermal conductivity of two hundred W/mK or more for increased heat transfer (by choosing aluminum, for example as a material which meets the claim limitations), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally Re claim 34, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to wherein the percentage of the thermally-conductive material in the heat exchange structure, on a volumetric basis, comprises five to fifty percent, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component (to enlarge the tube section to change the heat exchange characteristics). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 35, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the SS MT PCM is selected from the group of materials listed in Table 1 for increased heat transfer or desirable specific heat transfer characteristics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al., as modified by Miers et al., in view of RENDALL US 20230082570 A1.
Re claim 27, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach pcm specifics.
RENDALL teach the SL PCMs comprise a low-melting-point metal or alloy, wax, organic material, or salt-hydrate to aid in heat of liquid evacuation (para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include pcm specifics as taught by RENDALL in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchange characteristics.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Bradfield US 20160105067 A1.
Re claim 30, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Bradfield teach wherein of the thermally- conductive material is electrically conductive to attach specific device (para 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Bradfield in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for attachment to machines for cooling with grounding effects.
Re claim 31, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the thermally- conductive material comprises a metal or alloy for increased heat transfer (by choosing aluminum, for example as a material which meets the claim limitations), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Baker et al. US 4,444,994.
Re claim 32, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Baker et al. teach of the thermally- conductive material is electrically insulating to give a controllable potential to a device (col 2 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Baker et al. in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electrical current prevention from flowing to undesirable areas.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Obiraki US 20150023081 A1.
Re claim 32, Agostini et al. fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Obiraki teach wherein of the thermally- conductive material is a semiconductor (6) to mount a chip on a semiconductor (para 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Obiraki in the Agostini et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for electrical power device heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agostini et al. in view of Gilley US 20110271994 A1 and Manzo US 20180187984 A1.
Alternatively Re claim 4, Gilley teach wherein the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section comprises dendrites, lattices, or periodic structures which penetrate into and/or permeate through the SSMT PCM (para 26 of Gilley, and Table 1 of Manzo) to use stainless steel in a heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section comprises dendrites, lattices, or periodic structures which penetrate into and/or permeate through the SSMT PCM for increased heat transfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 14-16, 18-20, 22-29, 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1.
Re claim 37, Miers et al. teach
a heat exchanger plate comprising: a heat receiving section (portions of 12, 16, 56, 52 adjacent to heat source, col 5-6) formed of thermally-conductive material which is configured to be in proximity with a heat source so as to receive thermal energy from the heat source (col 5-6), a thermal energy spreading section( portions of 12, 16, 56, 52 away from heat source, col 5-6 formed of thermally-conductive material which is laterally arranged to the heat receiving section that is configured to pull thermal energy outwardly and laterally away from the heat receiving section and distribute the pulled thermal energy into and/or throughout the plate (fig 1a, 1b); phase change material (PCM) (18, 58), in contact with and laterally surrounding the thermally-conductive material (figs).
Miers et al. fail to explicitly teach SSMT details.
Sharar teach and a solid state (SS) Martensitic transformation (MT) phase change material (PCM) (para 13-15, 10-11) configured to readily undergo a solid-solid martensitic transformation from one crystalline structure to another different crystalline structure during a change in temperature in the normal and/or anticipated operating temperatures of the distributed thermal energy from the heat receiving section (para 13-15, to provide a PCM in a heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include SSMT details as taught by Sharar in the Miers et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for high thermal conductivity and the high volumetric latent heat for any known solid-solid PCM heat exchanger.
Re claim 38, Miers et al. teach wherein the thermal energy spreading section comprises a plurality of dendrites (annotated fig), which extend away the heat receiving section and penetrate into and/or permeate through the SS MT PCM (in the instant combination, see the rejection of claim 37).
PNG
media_image2.png
827
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 39, Miers et al. teach wherein the dendrites are integrally connected and formed of the same thermally-conductive material as the heat receiving section (figs).
Re claim 40, Miers et al. teach wherein the heat receiving section is centrally-located with respect to a surface of the plate proximate to the heat source (figs).
Re claim 1, Miers et al. teach teach a heat exchange structure comprising: a thermally-conductive material comprising: (i) a heat receiving section (see the rejection of claim 37) configured to be in contact with a heat source (col 5-6) so as to receive thermal energy from the heat source, and (ii) a thermal energy spreading section (see the rejection of claim 37) configured to pull thermal energy away from the heat receiving section and distribute the pulled thermal energy into and/or throughout the entire heat exchange structure;
and a phase change material (PCM) (see the rejection of claim 37), in contact with and surrounding the thermally-conductive material (figs),
Miers et al. fail to explicitly teach SSMT details.
Sharar teach and a solid state (SS) Martensitic transformation (MT) phase change material (PCM)
configured to readily undergo a solid-solid martensitic transformation from one crystalline structure to another different crystalline structure during a change in temperature in the normal and/or anticipated operating temperatures of the distributed thermal energy from the heat receiving section (para 13-15, 10-11, see the rejection of claim 37) to provide a PCM in a heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include SSMT details as taught by Sharar in the Miers et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for high thermal conductivity and the high volumetric latent heat for any known solid-solid PCM heat exchanger.
Re claim 2, Miers et al. teach wherein the heat receiving section is sized to conform to the outer dimensions of the heat source (figs, noting the “the heat receiving section” will naturally be considered the “section” immediate and conforming to the heat source).
Re claim 3, Miers et al. teach wherein the thermal energy spreading section comprises a plurality of thermal conductivity pathways (figs).
Re claim 4, Miers et al. teach wherein the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section comprises dendrites, lattices, or periodic structures which penetrate into and/or permeate through the SSMT PCM (annotated fig see above).
Re claim 5, Miers et al. teach wherein the dendrites connect to the heat receiving section and outwardly extend away in various directions (figs) .
Re claim 6, Miers et al. teach wherein individual dendrites gradually narrow to a point as they extend outwardly (figs 1a, b vertically, and fig 1b thinning as extending from center).
Re claim 7, Miers et al. teach wherein the extension of the dendrite is straight or wavy (figs).
Re claim 9, Miers et al. teach wherein the dendrites extend in two dimensions (figs) .
Re claim 10, Miers et al. teach wherein the dendrites are the same in cross-section in the other dimension (figs) .
Re claim 14, Miers et al. teach wherein the plurality of the thermal conductivity pathways of the thermal energy spreading section extend in two or three dimensions (figs) .
Re claim 15, Miers et al. teach further comprising: a heat source which generates thermal energy (col 5-6).
Re claim 16, Miers et al. teach wherein the heat source is a chip or integrated circuit (col 5-6, col 5 lines 55-60).
Re claim 18, Miers et al. teach wherein the heat source is a passive or active electronic component (col 5-6, col 5 lines 55-60).
Re claim 19, Miers et al. teach wherein the passive or active electronic component is a standalone element (noting naming an element stand alone does not change the structure; noting the circuit is considered to be stand alone naturally by having its circuit on itself, and stand alone does not add structure per the claim or spec; see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 20, Miers et al. teach wherein the passive or active electronic component is a sub-element of a chip or integrated circuit (noting the claim limitations are naturally met since a chip/IC will have at least a portion that generate heat and would be considered the sub element which is the heat generating portion; see the rejection of claim 16 ).
Re claim 22, Miers et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach SSMT details.
Sharar teach a plurality of channels provided in the SS MP PCM for flowing a fluid therethrough to provide a PCM in a heat exchanger with fluid flow for heat removal (fig 11, 11b, 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include SSMT details as taught by Sharar in the Miers et al, as modified,. invention in order to advantageously allow for high thermal conductivity and the high volumetric latent heat removal in a loop.
Re claim 23, Miers et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the channels are at least ten nm across. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the channels are at least ten nm across, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 24, Sharar teach wherein the fluid comprises air, water, hydrofluorocarbon, alcohol-derived solvent, metal or polymer in liquid state, or super-critical C02 (see the rejection of claim 22).
Re claim 25, Miers et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach SSMT details.
Sharar teach further comprising: a plurality of solid-to-liquid (SL) PCMs incorporated into the SS MP PCM for heat removal (fig 11, 11b, 10a noting “coolant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include SSMT details as taught by Sharar in the Miers et al, as modified,. invention in order to advantageously allow for high thermal conductivity and the high volumetric latent heat removal in a loop.
Re claim 26, Miers et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the SL PCMs are at least one hundred nm across. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the SL PCMs are at least one hundred nm across, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 27, Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the SL PCMs comprise a low-melting-point metal or alloy, wax, organic material, or salt-hydrate” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter 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. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07. It is also noted that organic cooling fluids are well known in the art.
Re claim 28, Miers et al. teach wherein neither of the crystalline structures requires physical deformation to achieve the transformation (noting heat will satisfy the transformation).
Re claim 29, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the thermally- conductive material has a thermal conductivity of two hundred W/mK or more for increased heat transfer (by choosing aluminum, for example as a material which meets the claim limitations), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 34, Miers et al. teach wherein the percentage of the thermally-conductive material in the heat exchange structure, on a volumetric basis, comprises five to fifty percent (figs, noting the range is considered vary broad, additionally noting that one of ordainry skill in the art would find it obvious and/or obvious to try to vary the ratio of two materials of different thermal conductivity to fine tune or vary the rate of heat exchange of the entire structure as a whole).
Re claim 35, Sharar teach wherein the SS MT PCM is selected from the group of materials listed in Table 1 (para 63).
Re claim 36, Miers et al. teach wherein the heat exchange structure is a heat pipe, vapor chamber, or other high-effective-conductivity structure (figs).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 in view of Lin US 20210136949 A1.
Re claim 17, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach adhesion details.
Lin teach the heat source connects to heat receiving section of the thermally-conductive material via a press fit, chemical bond, adhesive, and/or solder to use heat dissipating for heat source connection cooling (para 19) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include adhesion details as taught by Lin in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for to reduce thermal contact resistance between the components.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 and Machida.
Re claim 21, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a plating.
Machida teach having a plating on one or both of top and bottom surfaces thereof (para 58) to add a nickel-plating film to main surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plating as taught by Machida in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for corrosion protection.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 and RENDALL US 20230082570 A1.
Re claim 27, RENDALL teach the SL PCMs comprise a low-melting-point metal or alloy, wax, organic material, or salt-hydrate to aid in heat of liquid evacuation (para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include pcm specifics as taught by RENDALL in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchange characteristics.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 in view of Bradfield US 20160105067 A1.
Re claim 30, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Bradfield teach wherein of the thermally- conductive material is electrically conductive to attach specific device (para 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Bradfield in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for attachment to machines for cooling with grounding effects.
Re claim 31, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the thermally- conductive material comprises a metal or alloy for increased heat transfer (by choosing aluminum, for example as a material which meets the claim limitations), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 in view of Baker et al. US 4,444,994.
Re claim 32, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Baker et al. teach of the thermally- conductive material is electrically insulating to give a controllable potential to a device (col 2 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Baker et al. in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for electrical current prevention from flowing to undesirable areas.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 in view of Obiraki US 20150023081 A1.
Re claim 33, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach material specifics.
Obiraki teach wherein of the thermally- conductive material is a semiconductor (6) to mount a chip on a semiconductor (para 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material specifics as taught by Obiraki in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for electrical power device heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miers et al. US 11243032 B2 in view of Sharar US 20200407615 A1 in view of Machida US 20230269912 A1.
Re claim 21, Miers et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a plating.
Machida teach having a plating on one or both of top and bottom surfaces thereof (para 58) to add a nickel-plating film to main surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plating as taught by Machida in the Miers et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for corrosion protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the 112 rejections / objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections / objections have been withdrawn.
To address applicants, concern regarding the species, the added structure would constitute a different search than the solid thermal pathway in figure 1, and the two different species are considered patentably distinct; for example the solid pathway (thermally and structural) through the PCM is considered patentably distinct and requires a different search from the PCM with cooling elements 210, which may be through-holes that may provide a path for fluid to pass, and thus change the operation as compared to Fig 1. Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases. If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm’r Pat. 1978). Examiner has clearly shown and met all restriction requirements and applicants additional arguments are not found to be persuasive. Species A, for example would be searched in H05K 7/2039, and Species B - would be searched in H05K 7/20436, F28F 3/042, Species C- H05K 3/0047, F28F 9/0273, Species D- H05K 1/0272, Species E- H05K 7/20409, F28F 3/02; Species F- H05K 7/20436; Species G- H05K 3/4007; Species H- C09K 5/06; Species I- H05K 3/383,; Species J- H05K 3/366; Species K- F28F 13/00; Species L- C09K 5/12; Species M- H05K 7/20509, F28F 2215/04; Species N- H05K 7/20472, F28F 13/08.
The applicant argues that Agostini fail to teach a phase change material (PCM) which undergoes a martensitic transformation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant specification outlines that “"martensitic transformation (MT)" may be generally used to refer to any of the solid-solid phase transformations. These phase transformations may involve, but are not necessarily limited to” in para 45. Therefore using BRI of claim 1 with a special definition given by the specification… “may be generally used to refer to any of the solid-solid phase transformations” Agostini clearly teach a solid-solid PCM transformation (see the rejection of claim 1). The next argument is moot regarding genus or species because the special definition as given by the specification states that “may be generally used to refer to any of the solid-solid phase transformations” which is not limited to specific species or genus, which furthermore is not defined in the specification . What are the different species and genus of martensitic transformation (MT)?
The arguments in regards to claim 3 are moot in view of a new rejection of record provided with on 3 being considered the “material” of claim 1. Alternatively, where 3 and 10 are considered “a thermally conductive material” , one or ordinary skill in the the art would see the joining 3 and 10 to be a “a thermally conductive material” noting “a thermally conductive material” is broad and can have more than one parts, elements etc, especially since claim 1 has a material having multiple sections; one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a material with different sections as have more than one parts, structures, compositions etc.. Although applicant is arguing that examiner is stating the fins or tubes are part of the base plate, in actuality, examiner is treating the term “material” to have multiple components as one or ordinary skill in the art would considered the scope of claim 1.
The applicant argues that No "phase change material (PCM), in contact with and surrounding the thermally-conductive material" has been shown in Agostini. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that 11 PCM is not “surrounding” 3 of base plate . The examiner respectfully disagrees. 11 clearly “extend around the margin or edge of” 3 (figs 2-3) since the entire top circumference of 12/3 is covered by the PCM 11. Further, the PCM is in contact with 11 (para 18).
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.
The applicant argues that the base plate is not sized to conform to the heat source. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Agostini teach “the heat receiving section” will naturally be considered the “section” immediate and conforming to the “one or more electric components that require cooling” para 14, since the term section is very broad.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the base plate is sized to conform to outer dimensions (or "footprint") of the component”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that 12 is 100% of a volumetric basis. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has mischaracterized the citations. In claim 1, a thermally-conductive material is (3 or alternatively 3 and 10). 12 is a heat receiving section. Claim 34 requires a volume of the “a thermally-conductive material” not the “heat receiving section”.
The applicant argues that in claim 35, examiner has only provided conclusory statements. The examiner respectfully disagrees. An obvious statement with M{PEP citation has been provided. Applicants arguments are not responsive to the obvious statement provided. Further applicant states that examiner hasn’t shown that the materials listed in Table 1 where not known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Is applicant suggesting that steel among other copper alloys were now known in the art previous to 9/21/2023?
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 11014162 B2, US 20040197519 A1, US 2023/0160307 Al -fig 9.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights