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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between “dimples” and the remaining structure of the monolithic heat exchanger. The “dimples” have not been properly positively set forth so as to recite structural cooperative relationships of said “dimples” with the remaining structure of the device.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,854,284 to Bash et al. (hereafter “Bash”’).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 20, Bash discloses (Fig. 1) an enclosure device (10) for a printed circuit board (PCB) (col. 1, ll. 7-25; col. 2, Il. 55-60), the enclosure device comprising: an enclosure wall structure (14, 16, 20, 22) enclosing an enclosure interior (between (14) and (20)) which has a PCB space in which to dispose the PCB (col. 1, ll. 7-25; col. 2, Il. 55-60), the enclosure wall structure including therein an internal geometry of a monolithic heat exchanger core of a monolithic heat exchanger (12, 28) having a plurality of internal channels (member (28) is a “coil” [col. 4, l. 18] which inherently forms a plurality of channels), the enclosure wall structure including one or more vents (36); and one or more fans (24) configured to drive air via one or more inlets (38) from an enclosure exterior outside of the enclosure wall structure through the internal channels (within (28)) and out of the one or more vents (36); the enclosure wall structure configured to block air flowing through the internal channels from entering the enclosure interior (see “dynamically controlled vents”, col. 4, l. 58), the monolithic heat exchanger including a turbulent core portion (28) configured to produce cross flow between the internal channels to promote turbulent airflow through the turbulent core portion (since the core portion (28) is a “coil” [col. 4, l. 18], it will inherently produce cross flow between the internal channels to promote turbulent airflow through the turbulent core portion).
Regarding claim 18, Bash discloses (Figs. 2A, 2B) a plurality of sensors (48, 236, 50-52, 56-58); and an environmental control unit (ECU) (210, 228, 246) coupled to the one or more fans (24) and the sensors, and configured to regulate humidity and temperature of the enclosure interior (col. 8, l. 38-col. 11, l. 36).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash in view of Stark.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bash discloses all as applied to claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, Bash discloses Bash discloses (Fig. 1) an enclosure device (10) for a printed circuit board (PCB) (col. 1, ll. 7-25; col. 2, Il. 55-60), the enclosure device comprising: an enclosure wall structure (14, 16, 20, 22) enclosing an enclosure interior (between (14) and (20)) which has a PCB space in which to dispose the PCB (col. 1, ll. 7-25; col. 2, Il. 55-60), the enclosure wall structure including therein an internal geometry of a monolithic heat exchanger core of a monolithic heat exchanger (12, 28) having a plurality of internal channels (member (28) is a “coil” [col. 4, l. 18] which inherently forms a plurality of channels), the enclosure wall structure including one or more vents (36); and one or more fans (24) configured to drive air via one or more inlets (38) from an enclosure exterior outside of the enclosure wall structure through the internal channels (within (28)) and out of the one or more vents (36).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 19, Bash does not disclose: a first closed system of one or more first heat pipes including a first working fluid flowing therein, the one or more first heat pipes being disposed adjacent to or in contact with the turbulent core portion of the monolithic heat exchanger. Further, regarding claim 5, Bash does not disclose that the first closed system of one or more first heat pipes is integrally formed as an integrated part of the enclosure wall structure and nestled into dimples of the monolithic heat exchanger.
Stark teaches conventionality of the heat pipe heat exchangers (Figs. 3, 4, 13) using small diameter heat pipes for efficient heat dissipation (col. 1, ll. 40-42; col. 2, ll. 43-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Bash by supplementing the heat exchanger of Bash with the small diameter heat pipe heat exchanger according to the teachings of Stark, so the combination would have: a first closed system of one or more first heat pipes including a first working fluid flowing therein, the one or more first heat pipes being disposed adjacent to or in contact with the turbulent core portion of the monolithic heat exchanger, wherein the first closed system of one or more first heat pipes is integrally formed as an integrated part of the enclosure wall structure and nestled into dimples of the monolithic heat exchanger, as claimed, in order to predictably augment heat dissipation (Stark, col. 1, ll. 40-42; col. 2, ll. 43-50).
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, it would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Bash by substituting the heat exchanger of Bash with the small diameter heat pipe heat exchanger according to the teachings of Stark, in order to save costs and simplify the design by elimination of the condenser (32) and of the compressor (30) of bash (since the heat pipes do not require either). Additionally, no electricity would be need to achieve cooling effect with the heat pipes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-17, are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 (“the monolithic heat exchanger comprises an additive manufactured heat exchanger core having a hybrid tubular lattice structure which includes one or more turbulent core portions in which the internal channels are interconnected and shaped to produce cross flow between the internal channels and promote turbulent airflow and one or more directional core portions in which the internal channels are directional to limit or block cross flow between the internal channels and impede turbulent airflow”) in combination with all of the limitations of claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 6-11, the limitations of claim 6 (“an interface panel disposed in the enclosure interior and disposed adjacent to or in contact with the one or more first heat pipes of the first closed system”) in combination with all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, are believed to render the combined subject matter, and claims 7-11 dependent therefrom, allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 (“the monolithic heat exchanger includes a directional core portion configured to limit or block cross flow between the internal channels to impede turbulent airflow and promote laminar airflow through the directional core portion”) in combination with all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, are believed to render the combined subject matter allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 13-16, the limitations of claim 13 (“a first closed system of one or more first heat pipes including a first working fluid flowing therein, the one or more first heat pipes being disposed adjacent to or in contact with the turbulent core portion of the monolithic heat exchanger”) in combination with all of the limitations of claim 13, are believed to render the combined subject matter, and claims 14-16 dependent therefrom, allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 (“the monolithic heat exchanger comprises an aluminum monolithic heat exchanger core having the internal channels configured geometrically to scatter electromagnetic radiation and provide EMI shielding”) in combination with all of the limitations of claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various cooling arrangements for electronic devices, wherein said cooling arrangements employ air and liquid cooling subsystems. Furter, the US 7675748 and US 4646202 teach cooling arrangements, wherein the cooling fluid flows through the housings’ walls. Furter, the US 7212403 teach cooling with heat pipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835