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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: radiating fins are described as reference number 11 in the specifications but shown as reference number 14 in the drawings. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: heat exchanger layer 2. 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. 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 § 112
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is amended to recite a "pure nickel layer" but element 3 is described in the drawings and specifications as a "nickel layer"Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are interpreted to refer to a layer comprising nickel.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker et al. (US 2008/0023179), and further in view of Rissanen et al. (US 2007/0251410).
Regarding claim 1, Bunker et al. discloses a heat dissipation structure, comprising: a main body (70) having a plurality of radiating fins (66).
While Bunker et al. discloses that a layer is applied to the outer surfaces of the radiating fins (Figure 4 and Paragraph 31: A binding medium such as metal or brazing material is between and bonds the radiating fins 66 and the heat-exchange layer 44 together), Bunker et al. dies not explicitly teach or disclose the layer as comprising pure nickel (e.g. a layer comprising nickel).
Rissanen et al. teaches a heat dissipation structure, comprising at least: a main body functioning as a heat radiating layer (Paragraph 11: A substrate) that is coated with a heat-exchange layer formed of a plurality of powder-like granules (Paragraphs 11-12: A porous heat transfer surface formed from powder), further comprising a pure nickel layer (e.g. a layer comprising nickel) applied between the heat radiating layer and the heat-exchange layer (Paragraph 20: There is a bonding layer comprising a binder and a metal brazing powder such as nickel that is between and is configured to bond the radiating layer and the heat-exchange layer together). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the as disclosed by Bunker et al. to comprise pure nickel as taught by Rissanen et al. to improve heat dissipation structure service life by selecting a brazing material that defines a layer that strongly bonds a heat-exchange layer to a fin (Paragraph 23 of Rissanen et al.).
Bunker et al. further discloses that a heat exchange layer formed of a plurality of granules (44) are applied over the layer (Figure 4 and Paragraph 31: A binding medium such as metal or brazing material is between and bonds the radiating fins 66 and the heat-exchange layer 44 together).
Regarding claim 6, Bunker et al. discloses a heat dissipation structure as discussed above, where the main body has a heat absorption side (Figure 4: See inner surface 74) and a heat dissipation side (Figure 4: See outer surface 68), and where the radiating fins extend from the heat dissipation side and being so arranged that they are spaced from one another (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Bunker et al. discloses a heat dissipation structure as discussed above, where the main body defines a heat sink (Paragraph 2: The main body defines a heat radiating structure functioning as a heat sink).
Regarding claim 8, Bunker et al. discloses wherein the heat absorbing side is configured to directly contact a heat source (e.g. is capable of being directly in contact with a heat source) to absorb heat therefrom.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Bunker et al. (US 2008/0023179) and Rissanen et al. (US 2007/0251410), and further in view of Kujirai (US 2004/0104021).
Regarding claim 3, Bunker et al. discloses a heat dissipation structure as discussed above. However, Bunker et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the main body and the plurality of radiating fins are made of an aluminum material.
Kujirai teaches a heat dissipation structure, comprising at least: a main body and a plurality of radiating fins (Figure 1), where the main body and the plurality of radiating fins are made of an aluminum material (Paragraph 53). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the main body and the plurality of radiating fins as disclosed by Bunker et al. to comprise an aluminum material as taught by Kujirai to improve heat transfer capability and reduce cost of the heat dissipation structure by utilizing materials that are readily available and known heat conductors.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Bunker et al. (US 2008/0023179) and Rissanen et al. (US 2007/0251410), and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2023/0040390).
Regarding claim 5, Bunker et al. discloses a heat dissipation structure as discussed above. While Bunker et al. discloses that the powder-like granules forming the heat-exchange layer are densely distributed over the outer surfaces of the radiating fins (Figure 4 and Paragraph 31, see also Figure 7: Granule density is configured to be varied according to heat dissipation requirements), Bunker et al. does not explicitly teach or disclose that the powder-like granules form multiple superposed layers.
Jeong et al. teaches a heat dissipation structure, comprising at least: a main body (20) having a plurality of radiating fins (Figure 2), where the radiating fins are coated on outer surfaces with a heat-exchange layer (10) formed of a plurality of powder-like granules (Paragraphs 41-45: Particles), where the powder-like granules form multiple superposed layers of granules (Figure 2: Layers 10a-10n). As a result it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the powder-like granules as disclosed by Bunker et al. in the form of a plurality of layers as taught by Jeong et al. to improve heat dissipation heat transfer efficiency by increasing heat dissipation surface area (Paragraph 25).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO (JP2004128243) in view of Hashimoto (US 7093650).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Yamamoto teaches a heat dissipation structure comprising a main body 1 having a plurality of radiating fins 2, and a heat-exchange layer 4 formed of a plurality of granules (see Fig. 1b)
Yamamoto does not teach a pure nickel layer applied on outer surfaces of the radiating fins, and the heat-exchange layer 4 formed of a plurality of granules applied over the nickel layer.
Hashimoto, directed to a heat dissipation structure, teaches a pure nickel layer (see col 8, lines 5-7) applied on an outer surface of a heat radiating surface, wherein a resin layer formed of copper particle material is applied over the nickel layer (see col 3, lines 7-20, 35-59; col 5, lines 52-59; col 7, lines 12-18; col 8, lines 5-54). Hashimoto teaches that said nickel layer may provide anticorrosion to prevent corrosion (see col 8, lines 50-53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Yamamoto by Hashimoto with the motivation of providing anticorrosion protection to the heat dissipation structure of Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 3,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the main body and the plurality of radiating fins are made of an aluminum material and the granules are made of a copper material (see pars. 13, 18).
Regarding claim 5,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the granules forming the heat-exchange layer are distributed over the outer surfaces of the radiating fins and form multiple superposed layers of granules (e.g. through multiple spraying or overlapped spraying).
Regarding claim 6,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the main body has a heat absorption side and a heat dissipation side (see Fig. 1); and the radiating fins being extended from the heat dissipation side and being so arranged that they are spaced from one another (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the main body is a heat sink (see par. 14).
Regarding claim 8,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the heat absorbing side is configured to directly contact a heat source to absorb heat therefrom (see pars. 8, 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Rissanen does not teach a pure nickel layer. However, claim 1 is interpreted such that said nickel layer must comprise nickel; Rissanen teaches said layer comprises nickel. Further, even assuming Rissanen does not teach a pure nickel layer, Hashimoto teaches a pure nickel layer (see col 8, lines 5-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang teaches a heat dissipation structure comprising a layer of copper particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights