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 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.
Claim 10 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.
The term “cold” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, “cold sprayed” is construed as –sprayed--.
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(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faille (FR 2933015 A1) in view of Aid (US Patent No. 4,574,876).
Regarding claim 1, Faille discloses a liquid cooler (Fig. 1) having an aluminum brazing bead structure (brazing bead structure may be understood as a line or a band of brazed structure on a rib or projected structure, Faille discloses a brazed structure on ribs 6 of the plates 2a and 2b. Faille further discloses the filler metal of type 4045 or 4343 can be used, page 6 of the translation, the filler metals are known aluminum filler metals to be used in an aluminum material), comprising: a first outer cover (2b), a second outer cover (2a), a plurality of water holes (7a and 7b), a liquid flow channel (coolant passage 3), at least one divider (ribs 6), and one or more open holes (orifices 8, Fig. 4a and 4b), wherein the plurality of water holes are formed on at least one of the first outer cover and the second outer cover (holes 7a and 7b are formed on one side of the plates 2a and 2b, Fig. 2), and the liquid flow channel is formed between the first outer cover and the second outer cover and in spatial communication with the plurality of water holes (the coolant passage 3 is formed between plates 2a and 2b and allows a passage defined to allow fluid communication between the holes 7a and 7b); wherein the at least one divider is integrally formed on the second outer cover (the ribs 6 are formed on the plate 2a), and divides the liquid flow channel into a plurality of sub-flow channels (coolant passages on opposite sides of the ribs); wherein the one or more open holes (8) are formed between the at least one divider and the first outer cover (the orifices 8 are positioned between a portion of the rib 6 of the plate 2a and the plate 2b, see Fig. 4b), and an upper surface of the at least one divider (upper surface of the plate 2a at the location of “6” in Fig. 4b) and a lower surface of the first outer cover (lower surface of the plate 2b at the location of “6” in Fig. 4b) are brazed together (the ribs 6 of the plates 2a and 2b are fixing area of the plates. “brazed” as claimed bear a structural limitation that the pieces are joined or fixed), so that the one or more open holes are formed into one or more blind holes (one side of the orifices 8 is closed by the plate 2b), and a ratio of a projected area of the upper surface of the at least one divider (a projected area on the upper surface of a rib 6 from bottom surface of the plate 2a) to a projected area of the lower surface of the first outer cover (a projected area on the lower surface of a rib 6 from upper surface of the plate 2b) is greater than 5% (the ratio of the projected areas of the ribs 6 of the plates 2a and 2b is closer than 100% or substantially identical, judging from the width and length of the ribs 6 of the plates 2a and 2b as shown in Figs. 1-4b are substantially identical).
Faille fails to disclose at least one divider island.
Aid (Fig. 2) discloses serpentine primary flow channels, and at least one divider island (136, 138, 141, 143) to define secondary flow paths between the divider islands 136, 138, 141, 143 and a seal line 118.
Aid further discloses that the arrangement to provide for primary and secondary flow paths is particularly advantageous because it minimizes regions in which the blood may stagnate (col. 9, lines 55-59).
Therefore, the secondary flow paths of Aid may be provided in the serpentine flow path in Faille. The modification requires that the ribs 6 in Faille to be modified into an island structure in order to allow the secondary flow paths to be defined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one divider island in Faille as taught by Aid in order to minimizes regions in which the fluid flowing in a serpentine flow path may stagnate.
Regarding claim 2, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the first outer cover and the second outer cover are made of aluminum or aluminum alloy (at least the brazing filler material 4045 or 4343 disclosed on page 6 of the translation on the surfaces of the plates 2a and 2b is aluminum alloy).
Regarding claim 3, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the one or more open holes have a circular, quasi-circular, rectangular, or irregular shape (the orifices 8 have a circular shape).
Regarding claim 4, Faille further discloses wherein the open holes are arranged at intervals (see Fig. 4a).
Faille fails to disclose a ratio of an interval length between adjacent ones of the open holes to a maximum length of the at least one divider island ranges between 10% and 20%.
Faille further discloses that successive orifices 8 are spaced from each other by a pitch P and the denser distribution of the brazing flux between the interfaces of the two plates when the orifices 8 are closer (lines 1-7 on page 8 of the translation). Therefore, the claimed “an interval length between adjacent ones of the open holes” is a result effective variable. Further, the claimed “a maximum length of the at least one divider island” may refer to a length of the modified rib 6. Manipulating the length of the rib 6 results a change in a flow pattern (more or less meander flow and/or more or less secondary flow paths modified by Aid) in the channel between the plates 2a and 2b. As a result, the claimed ratio is also result effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the interval length and the divider length to approach the claimed ratio range in order for proper flux distribution and a desired fluid flow pattern. Therefore, specifying the ratio in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a ratio of an interval length between adjacent ones of the open holes to a maximum length of the at least one divider island ranges between 10% and 20% in Faille through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Faille further discloses wherein the open holes are formed on a top portion of the at least one divider island (the orifices 8 are formed on top side of the plate 2a, see Fig. 4b).
Faille fails to disclose a ratio of a total projected area of the open holes formed on the at least one divider island to a projected area of the upper surface of the at least one divider island ranges between 3% and 10%.
It is noted that “a total projected area of the open holes formed on the at least one divider island” is dependent upon the density of orifices 8 over a length of the rib 6. Increasing the density of the of orifices 8 increases total projected area of orifices and vice versa. As concluded in claim 4 above, successive orifices 8 are spaced from each other by a pitch P and the denser distribution of the brazing flux between the interfaces of the two plates when the orifices 8 are closer (lines 1-7 on page 8 of the translation) and the density of orifices 8 is result effective. Also, manipulating the projected area of orifices effectively changes the size of the orifice and the capillarity of brazing flux spreads around each orifice 8 (last paragraph on page 6 of the translation). Further, “a projected area of the upper surface of the at least one divider island” may refer to a projected area of the modified rib 6. Similar to the length of the rib 6, manipulating the projected area of the rib 6 effectively changes its size and results a change in a flow pattern (more or less meander flow and/or more or less secondary flow paths modified by Aid) in the channel between the plates 2a and 2b. As a result, the ratio in claim 5 is also result effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the projected area and the projected area of the divider to approach the claimed ratio range in order for proper flux distribution and a desired fluid flow pattern. Therefore, specifying the ratio in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a ratio of a total projected area of the open holes formed on the at least one divider island to a projected area of the upper surface of the at least one divider island ranges between 3% and 10% in Faille through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the at least one divider island is more than one, and the divider islands are integrally formed on the second outer cover (a plurality of ribs 6 in an island form as modified by Aid, and each rib 6 is integral with the plate 2a).
Regarding claim 7, Faille as modified further discloses wherein at least one fin structure is provided in the liquid flow channel (turbulence pins 11), and the at least one fin structure is a wavy fin structure, a pin column fin structure, or a lanced fin structure (the turbulence pins 11 have a pin structure).
Regarding claim 8, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the first outer cover and the second outer cover are each a composite material pre-pressed with brazing preforms (the plate 2a, 2b is stamped with a sheet of the filler metal on both surfaces 9 and 10, page 6 of the translation).
Regarding claim 11, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the at least one divider island has a rectangular, square, or irregular shape (the ribs 6 have an irregular shape, specifically having a rounded end together with a rectangular shaped divider wall).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faille (FR 2933015 A1) in view of Aid (US Patent No. 4,574,876) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kujirai (US PGPub No. 2004/0104021).
Regarding claim 9, Faille fails to disclose wherein a metal layer is formed on an upper surface of the first outer cover.
Kujirai discloses a coating metal layer 3 is formed on exterior surfaces of a heat radiating fin 2 in contact with air to increase the heat radiation effect (paragraph 0040).
Therefore, the fins 4 and exterior surfaces of the plates 2a and 2b may be coated with the metal layer as taught by Kujirai. This includes providing a metal layer formed on an upper surface of the first outer cover (upper surface of the plate 2b shown in Fig. 4b of Faille).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a metal layer is formed on an upper surface of the first outer cover in Faille as taught by Kujirai in order to increase the heat radiation effect (paragraph 0040 of Kujirai) of the fins 4 and exterior surfaces of the plates 2a and 2b in Faille.
Regarding claim 10, Faille as modified further discloses wherein the metal layer is a cold sprayed copper layer (noted that the “cold sprayed” may be a method to form the metal layer. Thus, this is product-by-process limitation, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, see MPEP 2113. “cold sprayed” does not imply a distinct structure to the “metal layer” itself. Faille in view of Kujirai discloses that the metal layer may be a copper layer, paragraph 0043 of Kujirai).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763