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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Currently, 8-20 of the claims have been canceled, claims 28-32 have been added and claims 1-7 and 21-32 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”).
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 28, Lyon discloses a microchannel cooling block (Figs. 2-4) comprising: a base plate (Fig. 3, base plate 102); a microchannel array (Figs. 2-4, microchannels 103) comprising a plurality of thermally conductive plates connected to and extending from a surface of the base plate (Figs. 2-4, plates 110), the thermally conductive plates being aligned so that a highest or second highest thermally conductive axis thereof extends away from the surface of the base plate (Fig. 3, 110 extends away from base plate 102), adjacent ones of the thermally conductive plates being spaced apart from each other to form a plurality of microchannels therebetween (Figs. 2-4, 110 are spaced apart to from microchannels 103), one of the microchannels being between each adjacent two of the thermally conductive plates (Figs. 2-3, 103 are between 110); and a manifold connected to the thermally conductive plates (Fig. 6, manifold 240), an interior of the manifold being in fluid communication with the microchannels in the microchannel array (Fig. 6, 214 is in fluid communication with microchannels) wherein the microchannels are open to the manifold at a side thereof opposite to the base plate (Fig. 2 show opening 113 above microchannels 103 opposite of base plate 102).
Lyon also discloses wherein the thermally conductive plates can be made from a high thermal conductivity material for improved heat transfer (Col. 8, lines 52-58) but is silent to the exact material of the plated formed of graphite (as per claim 1) and comprise aligned graphite (as per claim 2) the aligned graphite is aligned pyrolytic graphite (as per claim 28).
McGlen teaches a thermal conductive device with graphene sheets and having graphene or graphite flakes being aligned (Para 0042-0043) the aligned graphite is aligned pyrolytic graphite (Para 0030). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the plate material of Lyon to use aligned graphite as taught by McGlen to have excellent barrier properties and improved thermal performance with small thickness and high level of flexibility (Para 0042-0044).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”) and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US Publication No.: 2009/0008061 hereinafter “Inagaki”).
With respect to claim 3, Lyon and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 1 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein one or more of the thermally conductive plates is individually clad with a metal.
Inagaki teaches fins or plates are clad with a brazing material (Para 00152). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the plates of Lyon with clad with a metal as taught by Inagaki to prevent pitting corrosion (Para 0152).
It is noted that claim 3 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. individually clad) 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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”) and further in view of Pokharna et al. (US Publication No.: 2005/0141195 hereinafter “Pokharna”).
With respect to claim 4, Lyon and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 1 as discussed above. Lyon is silent to the thermally conductive plates have a thickness in a range of 1 um to 500 um.
Pokharna teaches thermally conductive plates have a thickness in a range of 1 um to 500 um. (Fig. 7b and Para 0035, the width of the channels are 100um therefore the thickness of the plates are less than 100 um). 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 plates of Lyon to be within a range of 1-500 um as taught by Pokharna to reduce pressure drop and have a uniform heat exchange (Para 0033 and 0035).
With respect to claim 5, Lyon and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 1 as discussed above. Lyon is silent to the microchannels have a width in a range of 1 um to 500 um.
Pokharna teaches the microchannels have a width in a range of 1 um to 500 um. (Fig. 7b and Para 0035, the width is 100um or less). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the width of the microchannels of Lyon to be within a range of 1-500 um as taught by Pokharna to reduce pressure drop and have a uniform heat exchange (Para 0033 and 0035).
With respect to claim 6, Lyon and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 1 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein the base plate comprises copper.
Pokharna teaches a base plate the comprises copper (Para 0034, base 104 can be copper). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the material of the base plate of Lyon to be copper as taught by Pokharna to have a material with a desired thermal characteristics (Para 0033-0034).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”) and further in view of Roper et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0116188 hereinafter “Roper”).
With respect to claim 7, Lyon and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 1 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein the manifold comprises a plurality of levels stacked on each other, each subsequent one of the levels having a greater number of fluid flow passages than a preceding one of the levels.
Roper teaches a manifold that is branches with a subsequent level having a greater number of flow passages than a preceding level (Fig. 5a and Para 0008-0009 and 0011). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the manifold of Lyon with plurality of levels stacked on each other with each subsequent one of the levels having a greater number of flow passages than a preceding one of the levels as taught by Roper to increase the overall heat transfer efficiency (Para 0008).
Claims 21, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of Canaperi et al. (US Patent No.: 10,553,522 hereinafter “Canaperi”).
With respect to claims 21 and 30, Lyon discloses a microchannel cooling block (Figs. 2-4) comprising: a base plate (Fig. 3, base plate 102); a microchannel array (Figs. 2-4, microchannels 103) comprising a plurality of thermally conductive plates connected to and extending in a first direction from a surface of the base plate and in a second direction along the surface of the base plate (Figs. 2-4, plates 110 and see figure below for directions), adjacent ones of the thermally conductive plates being spaced apart from each other in a third direction to form a plurality of microchannels therebetween (Figs. 2-4, 110 are spaced apart to from microchannels 103 see figure below for directions), one of the microchannels being between each adjacent two of the thermally conductive plates (Figs. 2-3, 103 are between 110); and a manifold connected to the thermally conductive plates (Fig. 6, manifold 240), an interior of the manifold being in fluid communication with the microchannels in the microchannel array (Fig. 6, 214 is in fluid communication with microchannels).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lyon does not disclose an outermost surface of the microchannel array being a continuous metalized layer extending along outermost ones of the thermally conductive plates to each other in the third direction (as per claim 21) wherein the metalized layer comprises copper (as per claim 30).
Canaperi teaches a metal copper layer on top of fins (Fig. 3, copper layer 304 on fins 302 and Col. 1, lines 23-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the fins of Lyon with a copper layer as taught by Canaperi to aid in removal of an increased amount of heat with reducing the overall size (Col. 1, lines 12-19).
With respect to claim 27, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon also discloses wherein the microchannels are open to the manifold at a side thereof opposite to the base plate (Fig. 2 show opening 113 above microchannels 103 opposite of base plate 102).
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of Canaperi et al. (US Patent No.: 10,553,522 hereinafter “Canaperi”) and further in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”).
With respect to claim 22, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein the thermally conductive plates can be made from a high thermal conductivity material for improved heat transfer (Col. 8, lines 52-58) but is silent to the exact material comprise aligned graphite.
McGlen teaches a thermal conductive device with graphene sheets and having graphene or graphite flakes being aligned (Para 0042-0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the plate material of Lyon to use aligned graphite as taught by McGlen to have excellent barrier properties and improved thermal performance with small thickness and high level of flexibility (Para 0042-0044).
With respect to claim 29, Lyon, Canaperi and McGlen teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 22 as discussed above. McGlen teaches the aligned graphite is aligned pyrolytic graphite (Para 0030).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of Canaperi et al. (US Patent No.: 10,553,522 hereinafter “Canaperi”) and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US Publication No.: 2009/0008061 hereinafter “Inagaki”).
With respect to claim 23, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein one or more of the thermally conductive plates is individually clad with a metal.
Inagaki teaches fins or plates are clad with a brazing material (Para 00152). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the plates of Lyon with clad with a metal as taught by Inagaki to prevent pitting corrosion (Para 0152).
It is noted that claim 23 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. individually clad) 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 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of Canaperi et al. (US Patent No.: 10,553,522 hereinafter “Canaperi”) and further in view of Pokharna et al. (US Publication No.: 2005/0141195 hereinafter “Pokharna”).
With respect to claim 24, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon is silent to the thermally conductive plates have a thickness in a range of 1 um to 500 um.
Pokharna teaches thermally conductive plates have a thickness in a range of 1 um to 500 um. (Fig. 7b and Para 0035, the width of the channels are 100um therefore the thickness of the plates are less than 100 um). 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 plates of Lyon to be within a range of 1-500 um as taught by Pokharna to reduce pressure drop and have a uniform heat exchange (Para 0033 and 0035).
With respect to claim 25, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon is silent to the microchannels have a width in a range of 1 um to 500 um.
Pokharna teaches the microchannels have a width in a range of 1 um to 500 um. (Fig. 7b and Para 0035, the width is 100um or less). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the width of the microchannels of Lyon to be within a range of 1-500 um as taught by Pokharna to reduce pressure drop and have a uniform heat exchange (Para 0033 and 0035).
With respect to claim 26, Lyon and Canaperi teach the microchannel cooling block of claim 21 as discussed above. Lyon does not disclose wherein the base plate comprises copper.
Pokharna teaches a base plate the comprises copper (Para 0034, base 104 can be copper). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the material of the base plate of Lyon to be copper as taught by Pokharna to have a material with a desired thermal characteristics (Para 0033-0034).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US Patent No.: 10,274,266) in view of McGlen et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0175563 hereinafter “McGlen”) and further in view of Canaperi et al. (US Patent No.: 10,553,522 hereinafter “Canaperi”).
With respect to claims 31 and 32, Lyon and McGlen teach the cooling block of claim 1 above. Lyon does not disclose an outermost surface of the microchannel array being a continuous metalized layer extending along outermost ones of the thermally conductive plates to each other in the third direction (as per claim 31) wherein the metalized layer comprises copper (as per claim 32).
Canaperi teaches a metal copper layer on top of fins (Fig. 3, copper layer 304 on fins 302 and Col. 1, lines 23-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the fins of Lyon with a copper layer as taught by Canaperi to aid in removal of an increased amount of heat with reducing the overall size (Col. 1, lines 12-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has newly added references that teach the newly added claim limitations.
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