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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, figures 1-5 and claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Species B has additional flow modified positioned within the cooling channel and Species C has an additional PCB sensor within the channels and searching species B and C would not impose an additional burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the different embodiments with additional fluid flow modifiers and extra sensors within the channel would require a different field of search and would require searching different classes/subclasses and search strategies unique to the fluid flow modifiers and sensors.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 3-4 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a same material was not previously recited.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear if “the material” is referring to “the same material” or a different material.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the channel laser welds" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear if “the channel laser welds” is referring to the plurality of channel laser welds or different channel laser welds.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the perimeter laser welds" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear of “the perimeter laser welds” is referring to the plurality of perimeter laser welds or a different perimeter laser welds.
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 2-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Covington et al. (US Publication No.: 2003/0106799 hereinafter “Covington”).
With respect to claim 2, Covington discloses a cooling plate (Figs. 2a, 3a, 15 and Fig. 16 shows cooling plate) comprising: three stacked sheets of material comprising a top sheet, a bottom sheet, and a middle sheet (Fig. 15, top sheet 501, middle sheet 504 and bottom sheet 502 and Para 0088 aluminum can be used for the sheets); wherein: the middle sheet includes an open channel (Fig. 15, open channel 505 and Para 0094), formed via laser cutting (Para 0052), traversing an interior portion of the middle sheet (Para 0094 and Fig. 15, interior 505); and portions of the top sheet and the bottom sheet enclose the open channel (Fig. 15, 501 and 502 enclose 505); a plurality of channel laser welds applied around a circumference of the open channel, to secure the top sheet to the middle sheet, and the bottom sheet to the middle sheet, while enclosing the open channel; and a plurality of perimeter laser welds applied around an outer perimeter of the cooling plate to secure the top sheet to the middle sheet, and the bottom sheet to the middle sheet (Para 0072).
It is noted that claim 2 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. formed via laser cutting and laser welds applied around a circumference of the open channel, to secure the top sheet to the middle sheet, and the bottom sheet to the middle sheet, while enclosing the open channel; and a plurality of perimeter laser welds) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claims 3-4, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses in which the top sheet, middle sheet and bottom sheet are all formed from the same material (as per claim 2) in which the material is aluminum (as per claim 4)( Para 0088 aluminum can be used for the sheets).
With respect to claim 8, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses wherein the open channel traverses an interior portion of the middle sheet in a serpentine pattern (Fig. 5b, channel 112 can be serpentine Para 0113).
With respect to claim 9, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 8 as discussed above. Covington also discloses wherein the middle sheet further comprises one or more laser-cut radiused turns and baffles within the open channel (Fig. 5b, multiple radiused turns in 112 and baffles between the turns).
With respect to claim 10, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses in which the channel laser welds comprise a plurality of laser welds overlapping to form a continuous weld (Para 0072, 0109 and 0112).
With respect to claim 11, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses in which the perimeter laser welds comprise a plurality of laser welds overlapping to form a continuous weld (Para 0072, 0109 and 0112).
With respect to claim 12, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses further comprising an electronic device to which the cooling plate is secured during operation (Fig. 16, electronic device 620), whereby coolant can be passed through the open channel in order to remove thermal energy from the electronic device (Fig. 5, inlet 107 and 108 can pass through 100 to outlet port 109 and is capable of the intended use limitation).
It is noted that the phrases “coolant can be passed through the open channel in order to remove thermal energy from the electronic device” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim.
With respect to claim 13, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses further comprising an inlet port providing open communication between a first end of the open channel and an area outside the cooling plate (Fig. 5b, inlet ports 107 or 108), and an outlet port providing open communication between a second end of the open channel and an area outside the cooling plate (Fig. 5b, outlet port 109); whereby coolant may be introduced through the inlet port, passed through the middle sheet open channel, and evacuated from the outlet port (Fig. 5b is capable of the intended use limitation).
It is noted that the phrases “coolant may be introduced through the inlet port, passed through the middle sheet open channel, and evacuated from the outlet port” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim.
With respect to claim 14, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington also discloses wherein at least one of the top sheet and the bottom sheet are comprised of textured aluminum, having a textured surface facing inward toward the open channel (Fig. 15, top and bottom sheets 501 and 502 have a texture and textured surfaces 506 and 508 face open channel 505. Nothing in the claim defines “textured surface” and therefore any surface can be a textured surface whether is smooth or otherwise).
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington et al. (US Publication No.: 2003/0106799 hereinafter “Covington”) in view of Aoki et al. (US Publication No.: 2019/0360760 hereinafter “Aoki”).
With respect to claim 1, Covington discloses a cooling plate for mounting on an electronic system for thermal management (Figs. 2a, 3a, 15 and Fig. 16 shows cooling plate for mounting an electronic system), comprising: three stacked flat aluminum sheets comprising a top sheet, a bottom sheet, and a middle sheet (Fig. 15, top sheet 501, middle sheet 504 and bottom sheet 502 and Para 0088 aluminum can be used for the layers); wherein: the middle sheet comprises an open channel traversing an interior portion of the middle sheet (Fig. 15, open channel 505 and Para 0094), the open channel formed via a laser cutting process (Para 0052); solid portions of the top sheet and the bottom sheet enclose the middle sheet open channel (Fig. 15, 501 and 502 enclose 505); and the top sheet and the bottom sheet are each secured to the middle sheet via: (a) one or more continuous laser welds applied around a circumference of the open channel; and (b) laser welding applied around an outer perimeter of the cooling plate (Para 0072).
Covington is silent to the top sheet and the bottom sheet are 1.5mm or less in thickness; the middle sheet has a thickness in excess of 1.5mm.
Aoki teaches a cooling plate with three stacked sheets with the middle sheet being in excess of 1.5 mm (Fig. 3, plate 33 and Para 0039 may be up to 4.5mm) and top and bottom sheets 1.5mm or less (Fig. 3, 31 and 32 and Para 0059 thickness may be 0.05 to 0.15mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the thickness of the sheets of Covington to be 1.5mm or less for the top and bottom sheet and the middle sheet in excess of 1.5mm as taught by Aoki to have a preferable thickness for a reliable junction for laser welding (Para 0038).
It is noted that claim 1 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. formed via a laser cutting process and are each secured to the middle sheet via: (a) one or more continuous laser welds applied around a circumference of the open channel; and (b) laser welding applied around an outer perimeter of the cooling plate) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington et al. (US Publication No.: 2003/0106799 hereinafter “Covington”).
With respect to claims 6-7, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 2 as discussed above. Covington does not disclose wherein the top sheet and the bottom sheet each have a thickness in a range of .5mm to 1.5mm (as per claim 6) in which the top sheet and the bottom sheet each have a thickness of 1.0mm or .040 inches (as per claim 7).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The configuration of the claimed sheet thickness is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed sheet thickness was significant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the thickness of the sheets of Covington to a sheet thickness of .5mm to 1.5mm or 1.0mm or .040 inches to have a thickness for a desired heat transfer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covington et al. (US Publication No.: 2003/0106799 hereinafter “Covington”) in view of Zaffetti et al. (US Publication No.: 20220105582 hereinafter “Zaffetti”).
With respect to claim 5, Covington discloses the cooling plate of claim 4 as discussed above. Covington does not disclose in which the aluminum is a 3003-series aluminum alloy.
Zaffetti teaches stacked sheets that are made of a 3003 aluminum (Para 0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aluminum of Covington to be a 3003 aluminum as taught by Zaffetti based on the type of assembly (Para 0040) and desired material properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights