Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/29/2023 and 11/13/2025 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference characters “132”, “134” (Figs 1A,1C), “322”, “324”, “330”, “334” (Fig 3), “426”, “428”, “428B” (Fig 4A-4C), “622”, “674”, “676”, “684”, “686” (Figs 6A-6B), “922A”, “922B” (Figs 9A-9B), “1012A”, “1012B”, “1014A”, “1014B”, “1024C”, “1024F” (Figs 10A-10B), (D-D’) (Fig 11A), “1190-3” (Fig 11E), “1326U”, “1326L” (Figs 13A-13B, 13D) has been used in the drawings, however disclosure does not mention them.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “132”, “134” (Figs 1A,1C), “322”, “324”, “330”, “334” (Fig 3), “426”, “428”, “428B” (Fig 4A-4C), “622”, “674”, “676”, “684”, “686” (Figs 6A-6B), “922A”, “922B” (Figs 9A-9B), “1012A”, “1012B”, “1014A”, “1014B”, “1024C”, “1024F” (Figs 10A-10B), (D-D’) (Fig 11A), “1190-3” (Fig 11E), “1326U”, “1326L” (Figs 13A-13B, 13D) has been used in the drawings, however disclosure does not mention them.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) (5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “1194-4” [0059], “Zone 1”, “Zone 2” [0036].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following patent rule informality:
● In Claim 19, Line 6, “microchannels.” is changed to read - - microchannels, - -.
See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).
See MPEP 608.01(m)
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.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sjodin et al (US 2019/0178586).
Regarding Claim 1, Sjodin (In Fig 1a) discloses a structure (1) comprising:
an inlet hole (5) through which a coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows into the structure (1), (Fig 1a);
an outlet hole (6) through which the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows out from the structure (1), (Fig 1a);
a plurality of inlet subchannels (4) coupled between the inlet hole (5) and a microchannel structure (structure forming 4), each of the inlet subchannels (4) including a first portion (portion 4 expanding toward 6) that expands as the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows therethrough (Fig 1a); and
a plurality of outlet subchannels (4) coupled between the microchannel structure (structure forming 4) and the outlet hole (6), each of the outlet subchannels (4) including a second portion (portion 4 contracting toward 6) that contracts as the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows therethrough (Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 9, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sjodin (In Fig 1a) further disclose wherein the structure (1) further including: a main inlet channel (channel within 7) coupled between the inlet hole (5) and the plurality of inlet subchannels (4); and a main outlet channel (channel within 7) coupled between the outlet hole (6) and the plurality of outlet subchannels (4), (Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 10, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Sjodin (In Fig 1a) further disclose wherein a first end portion of each of the inlet subchannels (4) is disposed proximate to the main inlet channel (channel within 7) and has a streamlined structure (Fig 1a), and wherein a second end portion of each of the outlet subchannels (4) is disposed proximate to the main outlet channel (channel within 7) has a streamlined structure (Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 11, Sjodin (In Fig 3a) discloses a cooling apparatus (1’) comprising:
a microchannel structure (structure forming 4 in 3) including a plurality of microchannels (4 in 3); and
a manifold structure (2) disposed over the plurality of microchannels (4 in 3), the manifold structure (2) including:
an inlet hole (5) through which a coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows into the manifold structure (2), (Fig 3a);
an outlet hole (6) through which the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows out from the manifold structure (2), (Fig 3a);
a plurality of inlet subchannels (4) coupled between the inlet hole (5) and the microchannel structure (structure forming 4 in 3), (Fig 3a), each of the inlet subchannels (4) including a first portion that expands as the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows therethrough (Fig 3a); and
a plurality of outlet subchannels (4) coupled between the microchannel structure (structure forming 4 in 3) and the outlet hole (6), (Fig 3a), each of the plurality of outlet subchannels (4) including a second portion that contracts as the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows therethrough (Fig 3a).
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 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 2-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Klaus et al (WO2012104058).
For the purpose of citation, Examiner used machine translation of WO2012104058, said translation has been provided herewith to the Applicant.
Regarding Claim 2, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the coolant fluid flows into the inlet hole in a first direction, and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels has a length in a second direction that increases along the first direction, the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction.
Instead, Klaus (In Fig 3a) teaches wherein the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 3, II. 2-3) flows into the inlet hole (8) in a first direction (9, providing fluid into 13), and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels (subchannels accommodating 5) has a length in a second direction (9, providing fluid into 11) that increases along the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13), the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) being orthogonal to the second direction (9, providing fluid into 11), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Klaus with the coolant fluid flowing into the inlet hole in a first direction, and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels having a length in a second direction that increases along the first direction and the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction to benefit from enabling a uniform temperature control of the fluids to be tampered by a heat transfer fluid in all channels (Klaus, ¶ 9, II. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 3, Sjodin in view of Klaus discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels has a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a first angle, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a second angle, a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead, Klaus (In Fig 3a) further teaches wherein the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels (subchannels accommodating 5) has a first sidewall and a second sidewall (Fig 3a), the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) by a first angle (Fig 3a), the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) by a second angle (Fig 3a), a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 3a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Klaus with the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels having a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a first angle, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a second angle, and a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°to benefit from enabling a uniform temperature control of the fluids to be tampered by a heat transfer fluid in all channels (Klaus, ¶ 9, II. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 15, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 11, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the coolant fluid flows into the inlet hole in a first direction, and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels has a length in a second direction that increases along the first direction, the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction.
Instead, Instead, Klaus (In Fig 3a) teaches wherein the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 3, II. 2-3) flows into the inlet hole (8) in a first direction (9, providing fluid into 13), and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels (subchannels accommodating 5) has a length in a second direction (9, providing fluid into 11) that increases along the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13), the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) being orthogonal to the second direction (9, providing fluid into 11), (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Klaus with the coolant fluid flowing into the inlet hole in a first direction, and the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels having a length in a second direction that increases along the first direction and the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction to benefit from enabling a uniform temperature control of the fluids to be tampered by a heat transfer fluid in all channels (Klaus, ¶ 9, II. 1-4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Klaus and further in view of De Sousa et al (US 2022/0015271).
Regarding Claim 4, Sjodin in view of Klaus discloses the limitations of Claim 3, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the first angle is equal to 0° and the second angle is in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead De Sousa (In Fig 6) teaches wherein the first angle (angle of sidewall of 25 with respect to inlet flow direction) is equal to 0° and the second angle (angle of 28 with respect to inlet flow direction) is in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Klaus and further with De Sousa with the first angle being equal to 0° and the second angle is in a range from 10° to 70° to benefit from effectively dissipating heat to avoid thermal runaway which may cause degradation or other damage to the circuitry (De Sousa, ¶ 2, II. 1-15).
Claims 5-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Nelson et al (US 5,002,123).
Regarding Claim 5, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the coolant fluid flows out from the outlet hole in a first direction, and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels has a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction, the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction.
Instead, Nelson (In Figs 6 and 11) teaches wherein the coolant fluid (fluid, Col 3, II. 48-55) flows out from the outlet hole (36g) in a first direction (Fig 11), and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels (34e) has a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction (Fig 6), the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson with the coolant fluid flowing out from the outlet hole in a first direction, and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels having a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction and the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction to benefit from providing lower pressure drop, and better temperature uniformity without a sacrifice in the thermal performance and without requiring more fluid flow (Nelson, Col 1, II. 33-39).
Regarding Claim 6, Sjodin in view of Nelson discloses the limitations of Claim 5, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels has a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle, the third direction being opposite to the first direction, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle, a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead, Nelson (In Figs 6 and 11) further teaches wherein the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels (34e) has a first sidewall (sidewall of 32e) and a second sidewall (sidewall 32e), (Fig 6), the first sidewall (sidewall of 32e) being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle (Fig 6), the third direction being opposite to the first direction (Fig 11), the second sidewall (sidewall 32e) being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle (Fig 6), a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson with the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels having a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle, and the third direction being opposite to the first direction, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle, and a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° to benefit from providing lower pressure drop, and better temperature uniformity without a sacrifice in the thermal performance and without requiring more fluid flow (Nelson, Col 1, II. 33-39).
Regarding Claim 7, Sjodin in view of Nelson discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the first angle is substantially equal to 0° and the second angle is in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead, Nelson (In Figs 6 and 11) further teaches wherein the first angle is substantially equal to 0° and the second angle is in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 11).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson with the first angle being substantially equal to 0° and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° to benefit from providing lower pressure drop, and better temperature uniformity without a sacrifice in the thermal performance and without requiring more fluid flow (Nelson, Col 1, II. 33-39).
Regarding Claim 17, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 11, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the coolant fluid flows out from the outlet hole in a first direction, and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels has a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction, the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction.
Instead, Nelson (In Figs 6 and 11) teaches wherein the coolant fluid (fluid, Col 3, II. 48-55) flows out from the outlet hole (36g) in a first direction (Fig 11), and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels (34e) has a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction (Fig 6), the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson with the coolant fluid flowing out from the outlet hole in a first direction, and the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels having a length in a second direction that decreases along the first direction and the first direction being orthogonal to the second direction to benefit from providing lower pressure drop, and better temperature uniformity without a sacrifice in the thermal performance and without requiring more fluid flow (Nelson, Col 1, II. 33-39).
Regarding Claim 18, Sjodin in view of Nelson discloses the limitations of Claim 17, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels has a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle, the third direction being opposite to the first direction, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle, a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead, Nelson (In Figs 6 and 11) further teaches wherein the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels (34e) has a first sidewall (sidewall of 32e) and a second sidewall (sidewall 32e), (Fig 6), the first sidewall (sidewall of 32e) being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle (Fig 6), the third direction being opposite to the first direction (Fig 11), the second sidewall (sidewall 32e) being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle (Fig 6), a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson with the second portion of each of the outlet subchannels having a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to a third direction by a first angle, and the third direction being opposite to the first direction, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the third direction by a second angle, and a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° to benefit from providing lower pressure drop, and better temperature uniformity without a sacrifice in the thermal performance and without requiring more fluid flow (Nelson, Col 1, II. 33-39).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Kenny et al (US 2004/0206477) Fig 6A.
Regarding Claim 8, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the inlet subchannels and the outlet subchannels are alternately arranged in a specific direction.
Instead, Kenny (In Fig 6A) teaches wherein the inlet subchannels (411) and the outlet subchannels (412) are alternately arranged in a specific direction (Fig 6A).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Kenny with the inlet subchannels and the outlet subchannels being alternately arranged in a specific direction to benefit from cooling at least one interface hot spot region in the heat source (Kenny, ¶ 9, II. 24-27).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Kenny Fig 9A.
Regarding Claim 12, Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 11, however Sjodin does not disclose wherein the apparatus further comprising: an insulating layer over which the microchannel structure is disposed; and a heat spreading layer directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure.
Instead Kenny (In Fig 9A) teaches wherein the apparatus (200) further comprising: an insulating layer (98) over which the microchannel structure (206) is disposed (Fig 9A); and a heat spreading layer (202) directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure (206), (Fig 9A).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Kenny with the apparatus further comprising an insulating layer over which the microchannel structure being disposed; and a heat spreading layer directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure to benefit from cooling at least one interface hot spot region in the heat source (Kenny, ¶ 9, II. 24-27).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Kenny Fig 9A in view of Fig 10A.
Regarding Claim 13, Sjodin in view of Kenny Fig 9A discloses the limitations of Claim 12, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the heat spreading layer has a thermal conductivity not less than 100 W/mK.
Instead, Kenny (In Fig 10A) teaches wherein the heat spreading layer (302) has a thermal conductivity not less than 100 W/mK (¶ 131, II. 7-10).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Kenny with the heat spreading layer having a thermal conductivity not less than 100 W/mK to benefit from cooling at least one interface hot spot region in the heat source (Kenny, ¶ 9, II. 24-27).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Kenny Fig 9A and further in view of Lee et al (US 2002/0195721).
Regarding Claim 14, Sjodin in view of Kenny Fig 9A discloses the limitations of Claim 12, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the apparatus further comprising a heat source disposed in the insulating layer, wherein the heat spreading layer has a length in a range from three times to ten times as great as a width of the heat source, and the heat spreading layer has a height less than 10 mm.
Instead, Lee (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the apparatus (300) further comprising a heat source (400) disposed in the insulating layer (380), wherein the heat spreading layer (310) has a length in a range from three times to ten times as great as a width of the heat source (400), (Fig 2), and the heat spreading layer (310) has a height less than 10 mm (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Kenny and further with Lee the apparatus further comprising a heat source disposed in the insulating layer, and the heat spreading layer having a length in a range from three times to ten times as great as a width of the heat source to benefit from providing a specific structure for denser circuit layout design which provides an improved heat dissipation (Lee, ¶ 6, II. 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed with a heat spreading layer having a height less than 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sjodin in view of Nelson and further in view of Klaus.
Regarding Claim 16, Sjodin in view of Nelson discloses the limitations of Claim 15, however Sjodin as modified does not disclose wherein the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels has a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a first angle, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a second angle, a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°.
Instead, Klaus (In Fig 3a) teaches wherein the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels (subchannels accommodating 5) has a first sidewall and a second sidewall (Fig 3a), the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) by a first angle (Fig 3a), the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction (9, providing fluid into 13) by a second angle (Fig 3a), a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70° (Fig 3a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sjodin with Nelson and further with Klaus with the first portion of each of the inlet subchannels having a first sidewall and a second sidewall, the first sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a first angle, the second sidewall being inclined with respect to the first direction by a second angle, and a sum of the first angle and the second angle being in a range from 10° to 70°to benefit from enabling a uniform temperature control of the fluids to be tampered by a heat transfer fluid in all channels (Klaus, ¶ 9, II. 1-4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Sjodin.
Regarding Claim 19, Nelson (In Fig 1A) discloses Nelson (In Figs 1A-1B) discloses a semiconductor device (Fig 1A), comprising:
a chip (24); and
a cooling apparatus (22/32/34/26) disposed over the chip (24) and being configured to dissipate heat generated in the chip (24) during an operation of the chip (24), (Fig 1A), the cooling apparatus (22/32/34/26) comprising a microchannel structure (32/34) and a manifold structure (housing Col 3, II. 48-56) disposed over the microchannel structure (34), (Fig 1A), the microchannel structure (32/34) including a plurality of microchannels (34), however Nelson does not discloses wherein the manifold structure includes: an inlet hole through which a coolant fluid flows into the manifold structure; an outlet hole through which the coolant fluid flows out from the manifold structure; a plurality of inlet subchannels coupled between the inlet hole and the microchannel structure, wherein each of the plurality of inlet subchannels including a first portion that expands as the coolant fluid flows therethrough; and a plurality of outlet subchannels coupled to the microchannel structure and the outlet hole, each of the plurality of outlet subchannels including a second portion that contracts as the coolant fluid flows therethrough.
Instead, Sjodin (In Fig 1a) discloses wherein the manifold structure (2) includes:
an inlet hole (5) through which a coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows into the manifold structure (2), (Fig 1a);
an outlet hole (6) through which the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows out from the manifold structure (2), (Fig 1a);
a plurality of inlet subchannels (4) coupled between the inlet hole (5) and the microchannel structure (structure forming 4), (Fig 1a), wherein each of the plurality of inlet subchannels (4) including a first portion (portion 4 expanding toward 6) that expands as the coolant fluid flows (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) therethrough (Fig 1a); and
a plurality of outlet subchannels (4) coupled to the microchannel structure (structure forming 4) and the outlet hole (6), each of the plurality of outlet subchannels (4) including a second portion that contracts as the coolant fluid (fluid, ¶ 6, II. 1-3) flows therethrough (Fig 1a).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nelson with Sjodin with the manifold structure including an inlet hole through which a coolant fluid flows into the manifold structure and an outlet hole through which the coolant fluid flows out from the manifold structure and a plurality of inlet subchannels being coupled between the inlet hole and the microchannel structure, and with each of the plurality of inlet subchannels including a first portion that expands as the coolant fluid flows therethrough; and a plurality of outlet subchannels being coupled to the microchannel structure and the outlet hole, each of the plurality of outlet subchannels including a second portion that contracts as the coolant fluid flows therethrough to benefit from efficiently control the flow of heat transfer fluid from inlet to the outlet using full available heat transfer surface (Sjodin, ¶ 3, II. 10-18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Sjodin and further in view of Kenny Fig 9A.
Regarding Claim 20, Nelson in view of Sjodin discloses the limitations of Claim 19, however Nelson as modified does not disclose wherein the device further comprising: an insulating layer over which the microchannel structure is disposed; and a heat spreading layer directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure.
Instead Kenny (In Fig 9A) teaches wherein the device (200) further comprising: an insulating layer (98) over which the microchannel structure (206) is disposed (Fig 9A); and a heat spreading layer (202) directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure (206), (Fig 9A).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nelson with Sjodin and further with Kenny with the device further comprising an insulating layer over which the microchannel structure being disposed; and a heat spreading layer directly contacting a bottom surface of the microchannel structure to benefit from cooling at least one interface hot spot region in the heat source (Kenny, ¶ 9, II. 24-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; Multi - Layered Counterflow Expanding Microchannel Cooling Architecture and System Thereof US 2019/0271513, Counter-Flow Expanding Channels for Enhanced Two-Phase Heat Removal US 2017/0179001, Vapor Chamber with Integrated Pin Array US 2002/0021556, Cooling Device and Electric Vehicle Using Cooling Device US 2010/0326750, Rack with Integrated Rear-Door Heat Exchange US 2021/0212242. Other pertinent art made of record are on form PTO-892 notice of reference cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835