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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 8-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. 20140190668A1) in view of Daikoku et al. (USP 5349831A) hereinafter referred to as Daikoku.
Regarding Claim 1, Joshi discloses a heat sink with a multilayer channel structure, comprising:
a main body part (40) provided with an inlet (13) through which a cooling fluid is introduced (shown in figure 6) and an outlet (30b-30e) through which the cooling fluid is discharged (shown in figure 6);
a first channel part (fluid paths between fins (52)) which is provided inside the main body part and through which the cooling fluid flows (shown in figure 6); and
a second channel part (27) which is provided inside the main body part and through which the cooling fluid flows (shown in figure 6, “Body forces from the bulk fluid motion of the coolant fluid alone may not sufficiently remove all the vapor formed within the cooling apparatus 10. In embodiments of the present disclosure, vapor bubbles that form within the cooling apparatus 10 may enter the vapor guide channels 27 above the surface fins 52”, ¶36), wherein
the second channel part is disposed to be stacked on the first channel part (shown in figure 6), the first channel part and the second channel part extend in different directions (shown in figure 6), and the second channel part communicates with the first channel part (shown in figure 6), wherein inlet includes: a first inlet (25) configured to guide the cooling fluid (shown in figure 6) to the first channel part (fluid paths between fins (52)), however Joshi fails to disclose a second inlet configured to guide the cooling fluid to the second channel part.
Daikoku, also drawn to an impingement heat sink, teaches a first inlet (5) and a second inlet (6) configured to guide the cooling fluid to the second channel part (shown in figure 1, wherein the second nozzles (6) of Daikoku are situated within the channel part adjacent the heat conducting devices). Daikoku further states, “the portion of the low temperature refrigerant liquid 11 is jetted from the second nozzles 6 into the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 in the gas-liquid phase in order to be mixed before the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 in the gas-liquid phase including the boiled bubbles reaches the adjacent semiconductor device 2 located downstream, the temperature of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 is rapidly lowered so that the vapor bubbles in the gas phase included in the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 are efficiently condensed to disappear”, col. 8 ll. 7-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Joshi with a second inlet configured to guide the cooling fluid to the second channel part, as taught by Daikoku, the motivation being to provide cooling fluid to the heated vapor in order to rapidly lower the temperature of the heated vapor to minimize any residual heating of other impingement cooled areas.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Joshi further teaches the first inlet (25, shown in figure 6 of Joshi) and the second inlet (previously taught by Daikoku in the rejection of Claim 2, wherein a modified Joshi contains a second inlet emanating from the same surface as the first inlet (25) and extending to the vapor guide channels (27), as shown in figure 6 of Joshi) are formed to have different depths (shown in figure 6 of Joshi).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Joshi further teaches the first inlet (25, shown in figure 6 of Joshi) and the second inlet (previously taught by Daikoku in the rejection of Claim 2, wherein a modified Joshi contains a second inlet emanating from the same surface as the first inlet (25) and extending to the vapor guide channels (27), as shown in figure 6 of Joshi) are each formed in at least one of a circular shape (shown in figure 4 of Joshi and figures 3, 6 and 16 of Daikoku).
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Joshi further teaches the outlet includes: a first outlet (30c) that communicates with the first channel part (fluid paths between fins (52), shown in figure 6); and
a second outlet (30b) that communicates with the second channel part (shown in figures 1 and 4, wherein the first and second channel parts fluidly communicate with the outlets).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Joshi further teaches a cross section of the first channel part and a cross section of the second channel part are each formed in at least one of a polygonal shape (shown in figures 5-6).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Joshi further teaches the first channel part (fluid paths between fins (52)) is provided with a first impingement surface (shown in figures 5-6, wherein the fluid impinges on the surface between the fins) on which the cooling fluid introduced through the first inlet (25) impinges (shown in figure 6).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Joshi further teaches the first impingement surface (shown in figures 5-6, wherein the fluid impinges on the surface between the fins) is formed to face the first inlet (shown in figure 6, wherein the fluid contact the surface between the fins after passing through the first inlet (25)).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Joshi further teaches the second channel part (27, shown in figure 4) is provided with a second impingement surface (shown in figure 6, being the top surface of the fins (52)) on which the cooling fluid introduced through the second inlet impinges.
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Joshi further teaches the second impingement surface (previously taught by Daikoku in the rejection of Claim 2, wherein a modified Joshi contains a second inlet emanating from the same surface as the first inlet (25) and extending to the vapor guide channels (27) of Joshi) is formed to face the second inlet (a modified Joshi having the aforementioned second inlet allows for impinging fluid to enter the vapor guide channels (27) and impinge on the top surfaces of the fins (52)).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Joshi further teaches an alternating flow part in which the cooling fluid flowing through the first channel part (fluid paths between fins (52)) and the cooling fluid flowing through the second channel part (27) alternately flow is provided at an intersection part of the first channel part and the second channel part (shown in figure 6, wherein the aforementioned first and second channel parts intersect on the top of the fins and the bottom of the vapor guide channels and allow the working fluid from each respective channel mix).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. 20140190668A1) in view of Daikoku et al. (USP 5349831A) as applied in Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 13-17 above and in further view of Luo et al. (Translation of CN109524376A).
Regarding Claim 10, although Joshi discloses the first channel part and the second channel part are formed to have heights (shown in figure 6), Joshi fails to disclose the first channel part and the second channel part are formed to have different heights.
Luo, also drawn to an impingement heat sink having perpendicular channels, teaches a first channel part (14) and a second channel part (10) are formed to have different heights (shown in figure 7).
Joshi does however teach that the first channel part and the second channel part are formed to have respective heights for allowing the working fluid to exit the heat sink.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide first and second channel heights in order to allow for a specific volume of working fluid to pass through the heat sink in correspondence with predetermined pressure levels. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the first and second channels have a same height or a different height, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that working fluid passes through the heat sink with a predetermined pressure drop, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Joshi, by having the first channel part and the second channel part being formed to have different heights, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first and second channel parts of Joshi with different heights, as taught by Luo, the motivation being to allow for a greater amount of expansion for the vapor phase of the working fluid during evaporation, thereby lessening pressure drop within the fluid flow path.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. 20140190668A1) in view of Daikoku et al. (USP 5349831A) as applied in Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 13-17 above and in further view of Gan et al. (Translation of CN110610911A), hereinafter referred to as Gan.
Regarding Claim 11, Joshi fails to disclose the first channel part and the first outlet are formed in the same shape.
Gan, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches a channel part (6) and an outlet (shown in figure 5, being the end portion of the channel (6)) are formed in the same shape (shown in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Joshi with the first channel part and the first outlet being formed in the same shape, as taught by Gan, the motivation being to extend the heat exchange fins for a greater amount of heat transfer.
Alternately, Joshi discloses the claimed invention except for the outlet being in rectangular shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the outlet be in a rectangular shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding Claim 12, Joshi fails to disclose the second channel part (27) and the second outlet are formed in the same shape.
Gan, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches a channel part (6) and an outlet (shown in figure 5, being the end portion of the channel (6)) are formed in the same shape (shown in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Joshi with the second channel part and the second outlet are formed in the same shape, as taught by Gan, the motivation being to extend the heat exchange fins for a greater amount of heat transfer.
Alternately, Joshi discloses the claimed invention except for the outlet being in rectangular shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the outlet be in a rectangular shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US PG Pub. 20140190668A1) in view of Daikoku et al. (USP 5349831A) as applied in Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 13-17 above and in further view of Stordy (GB2442978A), hereinafter referred to as Stordy.
Regarding Claim 19, Joshi fails to disclose the main body part is provided as a plurality of main body parts, and side surfaces of the plurality of main body parts are disposed in contact with each other.
Stordy, also drawn to a heat exchanger that allows that passing of working fluid, teaches a main body part (shown in figure 1 as being the hollow body) is provided as a plurality of main body parts (shown in figure 10), and side surfaces of the plurality of main body parts are disposed in contact with each other (shown in figure 10). Stordy further states, “The larger the surface area of a heat exchanger the greater its capacity to transfer heat. In instances where space heating or cooling is required it is often desirable to match the size of the heat exchanger to the requirement for heat transfer. A cost effective way to achieve this aim is to manufacture a generic modular heat exchanger component that can be assembled at either the point of manufacture or the site of installation to form a complete heat exchanger assembly of the desired size. The tooling and manufacturing costs associated with a modular component are less than the costs that would be associated with manufacturing multiple heat exchangers of different sizes.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Joshi with the main body part is provided as a plurality of main body parts, and side surfaces of the plurality of main body parts are disposed in contact with each other, as taught by Stordy, the motivation being to provide a heat transfer means for different areas in a cost effective way or to provide a heat transfer means to multiple areas of different sizes with a modular low cost solution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “The second nozzles do not guide cooling fluid to a separate ‘second channel part’ that extends in a different direction from a first channel part. Even if Daikoku's second nozzles were incorporated into Joshi, the result would be auxiliary nozzles for vapor condensation-not the claimed dual-inlet/dual-channel architecture.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joshi discloses the second channel part extending in a second direction different from the first direction, wherein the second channel part is formed to be a vapor guiding part. The second nozzles (6) of Daikoku are explicitly disclosed as being fluidly connected to the gas-liquid phase of the coolant downstream of the heat transfer, in order to regulate the temperature of the heated gas-liquid coolant.
On page 8 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “the proposed modification would destroy Joshi's principal operation. Joshi's vapor guide channels are deliberately designed to remain largely free of liquid coolant to accommodate vapor bubbles and provide low-pressure vapor evacuation. Actively pumping cooling fluid into these channels would defeat their purpose and render Joshi's invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joshi discloses the formation of vapor bubbles can lead to increased pressure drop and other adverse effects (“However, vapor bubbles are typically formed within the coolant fluid near the heat generating device. If not properly evacuated, vapor bubbles can lead to an increase in pressure drop and, if allowed to collect, lead to an increase in pressure within the cooling apparatus”), wherein the second nozzles of Daikoku are specifically drawn to removing the vapor bubbles (“When the portion of the low temperature refrigerant liquid 11 is jetted from the second nozzles 6 into the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 in the gas-liquid phase in order to be mixed before the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 in the gas-liquid phase including the boiled bubbles reaches the adjacent semiconductor device 2 located downstream, the temperature of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 is rapidly lowered so that the vapor bubbles in the gas phase included in the flow of the high temperature refrigerant liquid 12 are efficiently condensed to disappear”). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vapor channels of Joshi having the second nozzles of Daikoku, would benefit by removing vapor bubbles.
On page 8 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “The Examiner's ‘obvious to try’ rationale is misplaced. Channel height is a continuous variable with infinite possible values, not a binary choice. The ‘obvious to try’ rationale requires a finite number of identified solutions. KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 10 puts forth that first and second channel parts have different heights, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide first and second channel heights in order to allow for a specific volume of working fluid to pass through the heat sink in correspondence with predetermined pressure levels. The channel heights being the same or different is a binary choice, wherein Luo explicitly teaches that having different channel heights is old and well-known. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the first and second channels have a same height or a different height, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that working fluid passes through the heat sink with a predetermined pressure drop, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
On page 8 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “The Examiner's alternative rationale relying on MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) (mere change in shape) is inapplicable where the shape provides functional benefits, such as consistent flow characteristics and minimized pressure drop.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No specific shape or purported benefits are put forth in Claim 11, wherein Claim 11 only requires that the first channel part and first outlet are formed in the same shape and the second channel part and the second outlet are formed in the same shape.
Conclusion
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights