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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 02/14/2026, have made the claim objections and §112(b) rejection moot. The claim objections and §112(b) rejection of 10/22/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 19, filed 02/14/2026, have made the art rejection of claims 19-20 moot. The are rejection of claims 19-20 of 10/22/2025 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 12 ¶2-Page 13 ¶1: Applicant argues that the solid portion (in claim 1) is a high impedance portion that allows no flow through the SPEC expressly describes the solid portion as part of a multi-zone structure where the solid portions "reduce the cross-sectional area of the thermal transfer system at the high density heatsink structures, thereby increasing the coolant flow rate through the high density heatsink structures." And argues that Tseng does not disclose a solid portion as claimed.
--Arguments not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the solid portion is disclosed as increasing the coolant flow rate through the high density heatsink structures and that the solid portion of Tseng does not preferentially increase velocity through a downstream high-impedance zone OR does not reduce cross-section in order to increase a flow through a high-density high-impedance zone) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments directed to features which are not recited in the claims are not convincing
Additionally, in response to Applicants argument (Page 12 ¶3-Page 13 Line 2) that because in the art of Tseng the structure that is indicated as being the solid portion is part of the fluid conduit (e.g. fluid path) and thus not a solid obstruction located between the heatsinks as claimed. The examiner notes that this is not convincing because in the REM above (e.g. Page 10 Line 1-3 of REM filed on 02/14/2026) Applicant admitted that the solid portion is part of the fluid conduit.
Accordingly, since the solid portion of Tseng is: located between the heatsinks in the flow direction, is inherently an obstruction to fluid flow – since it reduces the cross-sectional area of the fluid flow path, and is part of the fluid conduit – just like the instant application (as admitted by applicant), Applicants argument is not convincing.--.
Page 13 ¶2-Page 14 ¶1: Applicant argues the language of claim 14, by asserting that Tseng does not disclose a connecting portion configured to equalize heat flow between the heat sinks; and that Tseng’s evaporator region is a phase-change region of a loop heat pipe which does not have the functional and structural relationship between the second heat sink, the electronic component, and the connecting portion as claimed.
--Applicants’ arguments are unpersuasive. With respect to Applicants' assertion that “Tseng does not disclose a connecting portion configured to equalize heat flow between the heat sinks” (claim 14) at Page 13 ¶2 & “Tseng’s evaporator region is a phase-change region of a loop heat pipe which does not have the function and structural relationship between the second heat sink, the electronic component, and the connecting portion as claimed” at Page 14 ¶1, Applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the examiner gives the assertion little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Furthermore, with regards to Applicants’ arguments (see bullet points at bottom of Page 13) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “A first internal heatsink zone upstream with lower flow resistance deliberately designed to keep overall pressure drop low where no electronic component is present”, “A second internal heatsink zone downstream having higher flow resistance and higher surface area that is located directly adjacent to and structurally dedicated to cooling a specific electronic component on the outer surface of the conduit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, in Tseng the articulated connecting portion (141, Fig 2 | 141 ', Fig 4) is identified and the examiner has explained why the connecting portion would equalize the heat as claimed. And since Applicant has not provided any evidence to support their position that Tseng would not equalize heat via conduction through the conduction portion – the examiner is not convinced that Tseng does not address this claimed feature.
Accordingly, Applicant has not convinced the examiner that the functional and structural relationship between the second heat sink, the electronic component, and the connecting portion as claimed are not taught by Tseng.--
Page 14 ¶3: Applicant Argues that: “Tseng does not suggest redesigning its wick and chamber structures to create the claimed first and second cooling zones, solid portion, and connecting portion working together as a multi-zone controller cooling system with controlled pressure drop as now required by independent claim 1 and its dependents.”.
--Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.--
Page 15 ¶1-Page 16 end: Applicant argues that claim 4 is non-obvious, because the refrigerated air taught by Vos does not undergo a phase change like in the art of Tseng.
--Examiner disagrees. Tseng does not require that the coolant undergoes phase change, rather all that is required is that the coolant moves through the system as heat is added (by the electronic device on 11) or removed (by the heat dissipating unit 15) from the coolant as it flows through the system. Additionally, thermal gradients (e.g. created by the electronic device and the heat dissipating unit) and capillary forces acting on the fluid (¶0008) are used to move the fluid through the system. Thus while the fluid does evaporate/condense/change phase in the system of Tseng, this is not the only mechanism which causes the fluid to move.
Furthermore, since the system of Tseng is a closed system, if refrigerated and compressed air were used as the coolant (as suggested by Vos), the addition and removal of heat in the system would still cause the fluid/air to move through the system. Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 17 ¶1-Page 18 Line 6: Applicant argues that the combination of prior art used to reject claim 11 overlooks how additive manufacturing is used in the present invention and how it cooperates with the multi-zone architecture.
--Applicants arguments are not persuasive. The examiner notes that claim 11 states: wherein the first heat sink and the second heat sink are formed using an additive manufacturing system. Thus no details regarding how additive manufacturing cooperates with the multi-zone architecture – are recited in the claim. Additionally, the examiner notes that since the art of Rabbi teaches using additive manufacturing for a heat pipe like the one taught by Tseng, it addresses the meets and bounds of a device (e.g. the first heat sink and the second heat sink) formed using additive manufacturing as claimed. Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 18 Line 6-Page 20 ¶1: Applicant argues features disclosed in the SPEC but not recited in the claims, demonstrates that the combination of prior art does not make obvious the language of claim 11.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., additive manufacturing (AM) is used to create highly differentiated internal geometries, for example:
• First and second cooling regions having different heatsink structures (e.g. , fins or pins vs. dense lattice) with correspondingly different surface areas and flow impedances along the same coolant path.
• Complex lattice structures, microchannels, or triply periodic minimal surfaces in the second cooling region to concentrate surface area near the high-temperature electronic components while managing pressure drop.
• High-impedance solid portions that reduce cross-section and redirect coolant flow toward high-density heatsink regions, increasing coolant velocity selectively through the high-impedance second region.
• Integrated structures formed as part of a single AM build (e.g., an inner portion 270 including first and second portions of the heatsink, or a fluid conduit plus internal heatsinks) that would be difficult or impossible to realize with conventional manufacturing techniques.
OR
• Forming the kind of multi-zone internal conduit now claimed, with first and second internal heatsinks having deliberately different surface areas and flow resistances along a shared conduit and dedicated to cooling an externally mounted electronic component at the second zone; or
• Using additive manufacturing to realize high-impedance solid portions that reduce cross-section between distinct internal heatsink zones and redirect coolant flow to increase velocity through a downstream high-density zone;
• Integrating such multi-zone internal heatsinks and solid portions as part of a compact housing or controller structure (e.g., turbocharger controller) that wraps around an electric motor, as disclosed in FIGS. 1-2.) are not recited in the rejected claim 11. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 20 ¶2-Page 22 ¶2: Applicant argues that the combination of prior art used to reject claim 3 does not account for the specific way in which MOSFET’s are used and cooled in the present invention.
--Applicants arguments are not persuasive. The examiner notes that claim 3 states: wherein the electronic component is a MOSFET. Thus no details regarding the specific way in which MOSFET’s are used and cooled in the present invention – are recited in the claim.
Additionally, the examiner notes that since the art of Louco teaches cooling an electronic component that includes a MOSFET – the prior art addresses the meets and bounds of a device (e.g. the electronic component/MOSFET of Louco) being cooled with a heat transfer system (e.g. heat transfer system taught by Tseng) as claimed, since the heat transfer system of Tseng provides for a more compact heat removal system.
Additionally, regarding all of the other arguments (Page 20 ¶2-Page 22 ¶2) – the examiner notes that these arguments are directed to features which are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 28 last paragraph-Page 32 end: Applicant argues the prior art does not make obvious claim 12 and 13 because it treats laser sintering and fused deposition modeling process without addressing the specific structural and functional roles that additive manufacturing plays in the claimed multi-zone internal conduit architecture.
--Arguments not persuasive. The examiner notes that claim 12 states: wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are formed using a laser sintering process. Also it is noted that claim 13 states: wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are formed using fused deposition modeling process. Accordingly, no details regarding how either laser sintering (claim 12) or fused deposition modeling (claim 13) are recited in the claim. Thus the claims in question are merely directed to a system which could be formed by a particular process – without any details on how the process is carried out. Because of this, and because claim 12/13 does not recite the details in the SPEC which are argued at length in the REM, the broad teachings of Dede which discloses using laser sintering / fused deposition modeling to make a device like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is able to make obvious the language of claims 12/13 in view of the advantages taught by Dede.
Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 33 ¶1-Page 36 ¶1: Applicant argues, that the prior art does not make obvious the limitations of claims 6 & 7.
The examiner notes that claim 6 states: wherein the first heatsink includes a plurality of fins and the second heatsink includes a lattice structure.
The examiner notes that claim 7 states: wherein the first heatsink includes a plurality of pins and the second heatsink includes a lattice structure.
Additionally, the prior art of Woody ‘873 states that fins or pins can be any shape designed to maximize surface area for contact with the cooling fluid and encourage heat transfer (¶0013). Thus since the fins/pins of the first heatsink and the lattice structure of the second heatsink are structures which maximize heat transfer, the prior art makes obvious the features claimed.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the instant application does not provide any articulated reason, or explanation (e.g. criticality) for why the inventor uses the particular fins/pins vs lattice structure in a coordinated zoned manner as argued. Accordingly, since the claimed arrangements are made arbitrarily, there is no specific teaching directed to using fins/pins vs lattice in a coordinated zoned manner that is gleaned only from the disclosure of the instant application. Therefore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 36 ¶2-Page 39 end: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 15 by arguing that (response to arguments are provided below each argument):
Tseng does not teach the second heat sink having a higher flow resistance than the first heat sink and that an electronic component is fixed at the second position on the outer portion of the conduit adjacent the second heat sink;
--Examiner disagrees. In the art of Tseng, the fluid moves slow enough through the second heat sink that it is vaporized by the external heat source (e.g. the electronic device fixed to the fluid conduit at the second position) because of this the flow resistance in the second heat sink is inherently greater than the flow resistance in the first heat sink. Also, applicant has not provided any articulated reason why this is not the case. Applicant has not provided any evidence to support their argument, that Tseng does not teach the features recited in claim 10. Since Applicants arguments lack evidence they are not convincing.--.
That the SPEC describes the second plurality of channels being narrower than the first plurality of channels and thus the flow resistance in the second plurality of channels is higher than the first plurality of channels.
--Applicants is arguing a feature that is inherent to fluid systems. In fluid systems flow resistance is manifested as pressure drop. The Darcy equation is used to calculate pressure drop. As seen in the figure explaining the Darcy equation below a larger diameter (e.g. wider channels) results in lower pressure drop (e.g. a lower flow resistance). Accordingly narrower fluid channels would inherently have higher flow resistance than a wider flow channel. This inherency applies to the prior art in the same manner as the instant application. Accordingly Applicants argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
948
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
--.
That the teachings of Woody do not make obvious the lattice/channel-width limitations in claim 15, because claim 15 is not about arbitrarily maximizing surface area and that the SPEC describes using different lattice structures to achieve functional goals and lists various alleged goals.
--Examiner disagrees. None of the goals being argued are claimed. Accordingly, arguments directed to features which are not claimed are not convincing. As claim 15 is currently written, it merely requires two sets of channels where one set is narrower than the other.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the instant application does not provide any articulated reason, or explanation (e.g. criticality) for why the inventor uses the particular two sets of channels where one set is narrower than the other. Thus since the language of the claim does not preclude designing the structure of the first and second heat sink to have the channels as claimed, in order to maximize surface area to encourage heat transfer as taught by Woody, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Arguing that: without the present teaching that a first lattice region should be low-density and a second lattice region high-density (narrower channels) to achieve particular pressure-drop and cooling objectives, a skilled person starting from Tseng and Woody would not be motivated to create the specific first-lattice/second-lattice configuration of claim 15.
--Examiner disagrees. As explained above pressure drop is inherently related to the size of the channel that the fluid flows through, as seen in the Darcy equation. Also since a slower fluid flow, which would inherently occur in a narrower channel/denser arrangement of narrow channels – would increase heat transfer given the increased contract time. And, the fact that Woody teaches designing heatsinks using any desired shape to encourage heat transfer (¶0013). Accordingly, a PHOSITA would be able to arrive at the claimed invention, using knowledge available in the art without using any teaching, gleaned only from the instant application. And because of this Applicants argument is not persuasive.--.
Page 40 ¶1-Page 41 end: Applicant traverses the rejections of claim 16 and 17, by arguing that the additional secondary references do not teach the particular materials recited in claims 16 & 17.
--The examiner notes that All that is being claimed in claims 16 and 17 is that a particular material is used to form the first heat sink and the second heat sink. No particular manufacturing method is claimed, for forming the heat sinks out of the claimed materials. Thus claims 16 and 17 are simply directed to selecting a known material for its intended use. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use the claims are obvious.--
Applicant’s arguments, see (Page 22 ¶3-Page 28 ¶3), filed 02/14/2026, with respect to the art rejection of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The art rejection of claim 19 of 10/22/2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 Line 6 currently states:
“the controller including a control circuit and a MOSFET carried on a controller housing;”.
Should be changed to state:
--the controller including a control circuit and a MOSFET carried [[on]] in a controller housing;--.
This change is made since Fig 2 shows electronic circuit 220 which includes the control circuit and MOSFETs, and forms a portion of controller 150 of Fig 1 (¶0030-¶0031) as being carried inside a controller housing part of housing 200.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-10, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tseng US 2019/0331432.
Regarding Claim 1: A heat transfer system (the heat transfer system is defined by the sum of its parts – 10, Figs 1-3 | 10’, Fig 4) comprising:
a fluid conduit (fluid conduit: 11,13,12,15,14, Fig 2 | 11’,13’,12’,15’,14’, Fig 4) having an interior portion (i.e. inside portion of the fluid conduit) for routing a coolant (¶0019-¶0021, ¶0025-¶0026 | ¶0028) and an outer portion (i.e. outside surface of the fluid conduit) physically isolated from the coolant (i.e. isolated via the wall of the fluid conduit);
a first heatsink (first heat sink: 123, Fig 2 | 123’, Fig 4) defining a first cooling zone (the first cooling zone = the area occupied by the first heat sink inside the conduit in Fig 2/Fig 4; additionally it is noted that whenever heat is transferred from one element to another, there is inherently cooling; and since the claim does not point out what the claimed cooling zone is cooling – the prior art defines a cooling zone as claimed) and being thermally coupled to the fluid conduit (since the fluid is cooled via element 15 of the fluid conduit surrounding the first heat sink, the first heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed, ¶0021, ¶0025 | the first heat sink enables element 15’ to dissipate heat, thus the first heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed, ¶0029) at a first position (position of 12 | position of 12’) on the interior portion of the fluid conduit (Fig 2 | Fig 4), the first heatsink having a first flow resistance (since the first heat sink sucks the fluid into it (¶0021,¶0025-¶0026 | ¶0029) the first heat sink has a very low flow resistance);
a second heatsink (second heat sink: 112, Fig 2 | 112’, Fig 4) defining a second cooling zone (the second cooling zone = the area occupied by the second heat sink inside the conduit in Fig 2/Fig 4; additionally it is noted that whenever heat is transferred from one element to another, there is inherently cooling; and since the claim does not point out what the claimed cooling zone is cooling – the prior art defines a cooling zone as claimed) and being thermally coupled to the fluid conduit (since heat is transferred to the fluid located in the second heat sink via element (11|11’) of the fluid conduit (¶0025 | ¶0028), thus the second heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed) at a second position (position of 11,111 | position of 11’,111’) on the interior portion of the fluid conduit (Fig 2 | Fig 4) located downstream of the first cooling zone in a direction of the coolant flow (given the flow path described in ¶0025-¶0026 the articulated second position is located downstream of the first cooling zone as claimed) the second heatsink having a second flow resistance greater than the first flow resistance (the second heatsink inherently has a flow resistance; additionally since the second heatsink holds the fluid within itself until the fluid is vaporized by the external heat source (¶0025 | ¶0028), the fluid moves much more slowly through the second heatsink than the first heat sink, therefore the flow resistance in the second heatsink is inherently greater than the flow resistance in the first heatsink);
wherein the second heat sink has a second surface area (second surface area = cross-sectional area along the longitudinal axis of 11/11’ through the portion of wick 112/112’ that does not have channels 1121/1121’) greater than a first surface area (first surface area = cross-sectional area along the longitudinal axis of 11/11’ through the portion of wick 112/112’ that does have channels 1121/1121’; since the second surface area is defined as a cross-sectional area without gaps in it, and the first surface area is defined as a cross-sectional area with gaps in it – the second surface area is inherently greater than the first surface area), the second surface area being configured to provide a higher thermal transfer capacity and a higher coolant flow impendence for the second cooling zone (because the second surface area does not have any gaps in it the fluid would inherently move slower though the second surface area than the first surface area, and because of this the second surface area is capable of (i.e. configured to provide) a higher thermal transfer capacity and a higher coolant flow impedance for the second cooling zone as claimed); and
an electronic component (electronic component = electronic device described in ¶0025) thermally coupled at the second position on the outer portion of the fluid conduit (i.e. placed on the evaporation chamber (11|11’), ¶0025) adjacent to the second heatsink (as described in ¶0025); and
a solid portion (solid portion: wall of 11 that connects to pipe 13 in Fig 2 | wall of 11’ that connects to pipe 13’ in Fig 4) configured and arranged (as seen in Fig 2 | as seen in Fig 4) to reduce a cross sectional area of the fluid conduit between the first heatsink and the second heatsink (as seen in the Figure (Fig 2 | Fig 4) the articulated solid portion reduces a cross sectional area of the fluid conduit from a large area (113 | 113’) to a small area (13 | 13’), and this reduction occurs at a location that is between the first heat sink (123 | 123’) and the second heat sink (112 | 112’) as claimed).
Regarding Claim 2: wherein the coolant is a liquid coolant flowing in the fluid conduit through the first heatsink and the second heatsink (¶0025).
Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5 recites product by process claim language:
wherein additive manufacturing is used to fabricate the fluid conduit, the first heatsink and the second heatsink.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (see MPEP 2113).
Therefore, since the final structure of Tseng US 2019/0331432 is the same structure as described by claim 5, Tseng US 2019/0331432 meets the limitations of claim 5 even though the same manufacturing process (additive manufacturing) may not have been used to fabricate the fluid conduit, the first heatsink and the second heatsink.
Additionally Regarding Claim 5: it is noted that the claim merely states that the different parts are made using additive manufacturing, and does not require any particular way of connecting the elements of the fluid conduit, the first heatsink and the second heatsink. Also there is no particular required material or other structure claimed which is specific to the additive manufacturing process being claimed.
Regarding Claim 9: wherein the fluid conduit has a first cross sectional area at the first heatsink (diameter of 14/14’ at the downstream end of the first heat sink 123/123’, ¶0023) and a second cross sectional area at the second heatsink (diameter of 13/13’ at the downstream end of the second heatsink 112/1112’, ¶0023) and where the first cross sectional area is greater than the second cross sectional area (it is since the internal diameter of 14/14’ is larger than the internal diameter of 13/13’, ¶0023).
Regarding Claim 10: A method of manufacturing a heat transfer system (i.e. manufacturing the heat transfer system:10, Figs 1-3 | 10’, Fig 4; Additionally, the examiner notes that since the final product comprising all of the claimed elements is taught by the prior art – it follows that each of the claimed elements are clearly provided / formed / affixed as claimed in the prior art device in order to arrive at the final product disclosed in the prior art reference) comprising:
providing a fluid conduit (fluid conduit: 11,13,12,15,14, Fig 2 | 11’,13’,12’,15’,14’, Fig 4) having an interior portion (i.e. inside portion of the fluid conduit) for routing a coolant (¶0019-¶0021, ¶0025-¶0026 | ¶0028) and an outer portion (i.e. outside surface of the fluid conduit) physically isolated from the coolant (i.e. isolated via the wall of the fluid conduit);
forming a first heatsink (forming first heat sink: 123, Fig 2 | 123’, Fig 4) having a first flow resistance (the first heat sink inherently has a flow resistance, since the first heat sink sucks the fluid into it (¶0021,¶0025-¶0026 | ¶0029) the first heat sink has a very low flow resistance) at a first position (position of 12 | position of 12’) on the interior portion of the fluid conduit (Fig 2 | Fig 4) such that the first heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit (since the fluid is cooled via element 15 of the fluid conduit surrounding the first heat sink, the first heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed, ¶0021, ¶0025 | the first heat sink enables element 15’ to dissipate heat, thus the first heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed, ¶0029);
forming a second heatsink (forming second heat sink: 112, Fig 2 | 112’, Fig 4) having a second flow resistance (the second heatsink inherently has a flow resistance) at a second position (position of 11,111 | position of 11’,111’) on the interior portion of the fluid conduit (Fig 2 | Fig 4) such that the second heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit (since heat is transferred to the fluid located in the second heat sink via element (11|11’) of the fluid conduit (¶0025 | ¶0028), thus the second heatsink is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit as claimed) and wherein the second flow resistance is greater than the first flow resistance (since the second heatsink holds the fluid within itself until the fluid is vaporized by the external heat source (¶0025 | ¶0028), the fluid moves much more slowly through the second heatsink than the first heat sink, therefore the flow resistance in the second heatsink is inherently greater than the flow resistance in the first heatsink); and
affixing an electronic component (electronic component = electronic device described in ¶0025) at the second position on the outer portion of the fluid conduit (i.e. placed on the evaporation chamber (11|11’), ¶0025) adjacent to the second heatsink such that the electronic component is thermally coupled to the fluid conduit and the second heatsink (as described in ¶0025).
Regarding Claim 14: further including a connecting portion (connecting portion: 141, Fig 2 | 141’, Fig 4) for connecting the first heatsink and the second heatsink (Fig 2 | Fig 4), wherein the first heatsink is configured to remove heat from the fluid conduit (¶0025, ¶0029), the second heatsink is configured to remove heat from the electronic component (¶0025), and the connecting portion is configured to equalize the flow of heat between the first heat sink and the second heat sink (since the connecting portion (141, Fig 2 | 141’, Fig 4) is disclosed as being in contact (¶0023) with both the first heat sink (123, Fig 2 | 123’, Fig 4) and the second heat sink (112, Fig 2 | 112’, Fig 4) – heat would be able to travel via conduction through the connecting portion to equalize the flow of heat as claimed).
Regarding Claim 18: wherein the fluid conduit has a first cross sectional area at the first heatsink (diameter of 14/14’ at the downstream end of the first heat sink 123/123’, ¶0023) and a second cross sectional area at the second heatsink (diameter of 13/13’ at the downstream end of the second heatsink 112/1112’, ¶0023) and where the first cross sectional area is greater than the second cross sectional area (it is since the internal diameter of 14/14’ is larger than the internal diameter of 13/13’, ¶0023).
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vos US 2017/0082371.
Regarding Claim 4: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, while Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses that the heat pipe system contains a large amount of working fluid/coolant (¶0006) to perform the heat transfer described Tseng US 2019/0331432 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the coolant is air. The prior art of Vos US 2017/0082371 which is directed to a heat exchange system (title, abstract) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However Vos US 2017/0082371 does disclose the limitations: a heat exchanger including a plurality of channels, wherein a coolant is provided through a set of the plurality of channels to provide cooling in the heat exchanger (abstract), wherein the coolant includes air (¶0049 – teaches that the coolant used with the heat exchanger includes refrigerated and compressed air).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use refrigerated and compressed air for the coolant/working fluid (Vos – ¶0049) in the heat transfer system (Tseng – 10, Figs 1-3 | 10’, Fig 4) of Tseng US 2019/0331432 since using air as a cooling fluid in a heat exchanger is known in the art (Vos – ¶0049).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rabbi US 2022/0009644.
Regarding Claim 11: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 10. Additionally, while the first heat sink and the second heat sink in the heat pipe system of Tseng US 2019/0331432 are inherently formed in some manner, Tseng US 2019/0331432 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the first heatsink and the second heatsink are formed using an additive manufacturing system. The prior art of Rabbi US 2022/0009644 which is directed to a heat pipe system providing cooling to an electronic component (title, abstract, ¶0031, ¶0140) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However Rabbi US 2022/0009644 does disclose the limitations: wherein the heat pipes 710 are 3D printed (e.g. formed using an additive manufacturing system) with relatively complex internal ‘wick’ structure which may improve evaporator performance (¶0160 – heat pipes 710 of Rabbi correspond to elements 11,13,12,14 / 11’,13’,12’,14’ of Tseng; and internal ‘wick’ structure of Rabbi corresponds to the first heatsink 123/123’ and the second heatsink 112/112’ of Tseng).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the first heatsink 123/123’ and the second heatsink 112/112’ of Tseng US 2019/0331432 with a 3D printer (e.g. using an additive manufacturing system) as taught by Rabbi US 2022/0009644 in order to form the relatively complex internal wick/heatsink structure in a manner which improves heat transfer performance (Rabbi - ¶0160).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Louco USPN 10462937.
Regarding Claim 3: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, while Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses that the heat pipe system is used to transfer heat away from the electronic component/heat source located on element 11 in ¶0025, Tseng US 2019/0331432 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the electronic component is a MOSFET. The prior art of Louco USPN 10462937 which is directed to a heat exchange system for cooling electronic components (title, abstract) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However Louco USPN 10462937 does disclose the limitations: a heat exchange system (Figs 1-7) cooling an electronic component (cooling electronics assembly 14 including PCB 50 having switching device 66, Column 4 Line 21-24, Column 5 Line 10-24, Column 5 Line 43-49, Column 5 Line 64-Column 6 Line 7, Column 6 Line 37-62; as described the PCB 50 is received in housing 40 where elements 50,66 are cooled), wherein the electronic component is a MOSFET (Column 6 Line 37-62, element 66 is a MOSFET).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the electronic component (14,50,66) of Louco USPN 10462937 so as to be cooled by the heat transfer system/loop heat pipe system of Tseng US 2019/0331432, in light of the teachings of Tseng US 2019/0331432, in order to provide a more compact heat removal system for the electronic component.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dede US 2019/0082560.
Regarding Claim 12: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 10. Additionally, while the first heatsink and the second heatsink in the heat pipe system of Tseng US 2019/0331432 are inherently formed in some manner, Tseng US 2019/0331432 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the first heatsink and the second heat sink are formed using a laser sintering process. The prior art of Dede US 2019/0082560 which is directed to methods for additive manufacturing of wick structure for a vapor chamber (title, abstract) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However, Dede US 2019/0082560 discloses the limitations: a wick structure (i.e. wick fabricated as shown in Figs 2A-2C, ¶0038-¶0041; it is noted that the wick of Dede is analogous to the first heat sink (123, Fig 2 | 123’, Fig 4) and the second heat sink (112, Fig 2 | 112’, Fig 4) of Tseng), wherein the wick structure is created by an additive selective laser sintering process (abstract, ¶0027-¶0028, ¶0032).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the wick structure/first and second heatsinks using a laser sintering process as taught by Dede US 2019/0082560 in the heat transfer system of Tseng US 2019/0331432, in light of the teachings of Dede US 2019/0082560, in order to be able to form surface enhancement features without the need for specialized molds or subtractive processes (Dede - ¶0039, ¶0038-¶0040).
Regarding Claim 13: in the rejection of claim 13 the art of Tseng US 2019/0331432 would be modified by Dede US 2019/0082560 in the same manner as discussed above with respect to claim 12. Furthermore, it is noted that since the laser sintering process taught by Dede results in the wicks/heatsinks being formed/modeled by selectively fusing/depositing layers of material to form the desired structure (Dede ¶0032-¶0037, Page 4 Claim 1). Accordingly, the laser sintering process taught by Dede is a fused deposition modeling process, and addresses the language of claim 13.
Claim(s) 6-7 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432 as applied to claim 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Woody US 2023/0260873.
Regarding Claims 6-7: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Tseng US 2019/0331432 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the first heatsink includes a plurality of fins and the second heatsink includes a lattice structure (claim 6) & wherein the first heatsink includes a plurality of pins and the second heatsink includes a lattice structure (claim 7). The prior art of Woody US 2023/0260873 which is directed to internal heat exchanger structure for cooling an electronic device (title, abstract) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However Woody US 2023/0260873 does disclose the limitations: the apparatus is intended to provide cooling for an electronic device in direct contact with the heatsink (¶0012), the opposing side of the heatsink may feature fins such as micro fins or pin fins. Such pins may be round, square, or some other shape designed to maximize surface area for contact with cooling fluid and encourage heat transfer (¶0013). Accordingly, Woody US 2023/0260873 teaches that the heatsink can be formed in any shape designed to encourage heat transfer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the structure of the first heatsink and the second heatsink of Tseng US 2019/0331432, specifically to:
design the first heatsink to include a plurality of fins and the second heatsink to include a lattice structure (claim 6); and
design the first heatsink to include a plurality of pins and the second heatsink to include a lattice structure (claim 7),
to ensure that the structure of the first heatsink and the second heatsink are designed to maximize surface area for contact with the fluid and encourage heat transfer (Woody – ¶0013) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 15: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 10. Tseng US 2019/0331432 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the first heatsink is formed from a first lattice structure having a first plurality of channels and the second heatsink is formed from a second lattice structure having a second plurality of channels and wherein the second plurality of channels are narrower than the first plurality of channels. The prior art of Woody US 2023/0260873 which is directed to internal heat exchanger structure for cooling an electronic device (title, abstract) like Tseng US 2019/0331432, is noted.
However Woody US 2023/0260873 does disclose the limitations: the apparatus is intended to provide cooling for an electronic device in direct contact with the heatsink (¶0012), the opposing side of the heatsink may feature fins such as micro fins or pin fins. Such pins may be round, square, or some other shape designed to maximize surface area for contact with cooling fluid and encourage heat transfer (¶0013). Accordingly, Woody US 2023/0260873 teaches that the heatsink can be formed in any shape designed to encourage heat transfer.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the structure of the first heatsink and the second heatsink of Tseng US 2019/0331432, specifically to:
form the first heatsink from a first lattice structure having a first plurality of channels and form the second heatsink from a second lattice structure having a second plurality of channels and design the first and second heatsinks such that the second plurality of channels are narrower than the first plurality of channels,
to ensure that the structure of the first heatsink and the second heatsink are designed to maximize surface area for contact with the fluid and encourage heat transfer (Woody – ¶0013) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng US 2019/0331432.
Regarding Claim 16: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first heatsink is formed from a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and the second heatsink is formed from a silicon carbide-reinforced polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first heatsink from a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and form the second heatsink from a silicon carbide-reinforced polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 17: Tseng US 2019/0331432 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first heatsink is formed from polymer matrix composite and the second heatsink is formed from one of an aluminum matrix composite, a copper matrix composite and a metal based composite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first heatsink from polymer matrix composite and form the second heatsink from one of an aluminum matrix composite, a copper matrix composite and a metal based composite, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 19: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the device recited in claim 19.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the available prior art in the claimed manner is neither contemplated nor foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention. Accordingly, claim 20 is allowable based on its dependency on allowable claim 19.
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights