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 § 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) 1-3, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rondier US 2007/0163765.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
\
PNG
media_image2.png
472
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rondier discloses a water cooling structure, see para. [0035], comprising: a heat sink, plate 24 attached to a power electronics target 9, having an inlet hole 27a, an outlet hole 27b, and an inner space, the space between plates 21 and 23, wherein the inner space communicates with the inlet hole and the outlet hole, the inlet and outlet hole is open to communication at 29, 30, a cover plate 23, disposed on the heat sink to seal the inner space, see fig. 1; a heat exchange module, disposed on the cover plate and located in the inner space, see the elements on the cover plate in fig. 3; a retaining wall, labeled retainer, disposed on the cover plate and located in the inner space, wherein the inlet hole and the outlet hole are disposed on different sides of the retaining wall, the inlet and the outlet are shown on the opposite sides of the retaining wall 29, 30; and a plurality of ribs 31 the u-shaped ribs, disposed on the cover plate and located in the inner space to form a plurality of flow channels through the heat exchanger module, the ribs form a channel for water to flow through the elements in fig. 3, wherein the plurality of ribs is extended outside the heat exchange module, the u-shaped ribs 31 are not formed between the linear elements 31 labeled heat exchanger consistent with the Applicant’s specification, a coolant, located in the inner space and diverted by the plurality of flow channels, the ribs form a plurality of u shaped channels that divert the coolant 180 degrees and are located in the inner space as shown in fig. 3 and the coolant is water, see for example para. [0035]. As noted in the second annotated fig. 3 above, the ribs are reinterpreted as including a portion of the straight rib 31, where the flow channels and the heat exchange modules are labeled.
Regarding claim 2, Rondier discloses the heat exchange module, the retaining wall and the ribs are all formed on the cover plate 23, see fig. 3.
Regarding claim 3, Rondier discloses the heat exchange module has a first fin assembly, 31 on the side of 27a, and a second fin assembly, 31 on the side of 27b, respectively located on two sides of the retaining wall, the fins 31 are on both sides of the retaining wall, the first fin assembly is corresponded to the inlet hole, as discussed above, the fin is next to 27a, and the second fin assembly is corresponded to the outlet hole, as discussed above, the fin is next to 27b, the fin assemblies are labeled as the elements 31 heat exchange module.
Regarding claim 10, Rondier, discloses a first passage and a second passage disposed on a top surface of the heat sink and respectively communicating with the inlet hole and the outlet hole. The passages 27 are disposed on a top surface of the heat sink and communicating with the inlet and outlet holes.
Regarding claim 11, Rondier discloses the heat sink and the cover plate are interconnected by brazing which is interpreted as adhesion. See para. [0041].
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) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rondier, in view of Crosatti US 2023/0398904.
Regarding claims 4-6, Rondier discloses all elements including the ribs are located on one of the two sides of the retaining wall near the outlet hole, near the inlet hole, or on both sides of the retaining wall but does not teach the ribs are connected to the first or second fin assemblies. Rather Rondier shows the ribs are separated from the fins.
Crosatti shows that heat exchanger wall structure may include an integrated baffle 1115. See fig. 12. The flow basin wall 1115 can regulate the rate of the flow of the fluid as the fluid is conveyed to other structure. See para. [0177].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the basins 1115 integrated on one of the walls 31 on both sides of the retaining wall of Rondier, as taught by Crosatti, in order to regulate the flow of the fluid as conveyed across the heat exchanger structure. Id. If the walls 1115 are integrated on the walls 31 of both sides of the retainer, the ribs would meet the limitations of claims 4-6.
Regarding claims 7-8, Rondier, in view of Crosatti, discloses the number of ribs includes two so as to divide the flow channels into three flow channels. Rondier shows two ribs and a total of three channels.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rondier, in view of Zhang US 10,842,043.
Regarding claim 9, Rondier discloses all elements except for the heat sink has a locking groove, and the cover plate is disposed in the locking groove.
Referring to figs. 4A-4D, Zhang teaches that a heat exchanger cover plate and heat sink may include a locking groove 425 in which the other end of the element may be fit therein. The locking groove facilitates hermetically sealing of the two components. See col. 11, lines 25-50.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to include a locking groove on the heat sink of Rondier, and a groove on the cover plate thereof, as taught by Zhang, in order to hermetically seal the two components. Id.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the plurality of ribs are not extended outside the heat exchange module. The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant’s figures show the heat exchange module being 130 and more precisely 131, 132 where the plurality of ribs 150 are shown to extend outside of the heat exchange module since a portion of the ribs are formed outside a length of the heat exchange module. Likewise, the ribs identified in annotated fig. 3 of Rondier are shown to be located in a similar manner outside the length of the heat exchange modules. Thus, the Examiner disagrees and asserts the ribs are extended outside the heat exchange module in at least the same manner as the Applicant’s disclosure.
The Applicant further appears to argue that only a single flow path 28 is shown between the heat exchange module and the deflectors. However, as labeled above in the second annotated fig. 3, at least 2 flow paths are drawn.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant appears to be attempting to claim that the plurality of ribs are sandwiched between the heat exchange modules such that the leading edge/trailing edge of the ribs are aligned with a leading edge/ trailing edge of fins of the heat exchange module, each rib extending continuously past the trailing edge/leading edge of the fins and curved to divert the coolant flow. However, such a limitation is not provided. The claims recite a limitation of a heat exchange module without any specific limiting structure. Additionally, the claims do not recite a limitation that requires the ribs to be continuous and necessarily formed between the heat exchange module. Rather the plurality of ribs are only required to form flow channels and the flow channels need to be through the heat exchange module.
The Applicant further argues the ribs of the invention are intended to divert the coolant in the flow channels where as the ribs of Rondier are used to reduce pressure drops through the heat dissipation module at only one rate. However, the functional recitations recited in the claims do not require structure beyond that disclosed in the device of Rondier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741