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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that reference to Soichi does not disclose “the local chambers of each layer (L1-4) are separated from one another within their layer (L1-4), so as to be connected one to another only through at least one local channel of another layer” since the fluid in Soichi allow fluid to flow continuously from one end of the layer all the way to the other end, has been carefully considered but is not found to be persuasive. Soichi discloses (figure A) that each layer (formed by layer of rib 42a or below layer of rib 42b), a separator identified as in figure A to prevent fluid to flow from one end to the other end in the same layer. Figure A shows that a fluid which flows in one local chamber of each layer would be deflected by the separator, so the fluid has to go under or over into the adjacent layer to continue the flow and continue its path to the outlet end.
Applicant’s further argument that the spacer (10) of Soichi would completely isolate the different fluid channel from one another, has been carefully considered but is not found to be persuasive. Soichi discloses (figures 9, 12 and figure A) that the layers are formed between two spacers (10), wherein within the layers between two spacers, there is only one type of fluid and there is no mixing of the two distinct medium as stated in applicant’s argument. (page 3).
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.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claimed subject matter of “the local chambers of each layer (L1-4) are separated from one another within their layer (L1-4), so as to be connected one to another only through at least one local channel of another layer” does not further limit the scope of the claim 2 or 3, since this limitation is already recited in claim 1.
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 1-8 and 11- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizui Soichi (JP 2006313054A), hereinafter Soichi.
Regarding claim 1, Soichi discloses (figure A and figure 9) a cooling structure comprising several layers (each layer formed by ribs 42a or 42b) and a network of local chambers distributed between the several layers stacked one on another according the a stacking direction (figure A and 9 shows at least two layers stacked each other), wherein each local chamber comprises at least two apertures of which at least one is in communication with a local chamber of another of the layers (apertures formed by overlapped portion connects two layers above and below), and wherein each local chamber comprises one or several meandering like structures blocking any direct path in the local chamber between two apertures (see figure A).
Soichi further discloses (figure A) that the local chambers of each layer are separate from another within their layer, so as to be connected one to another only through at least one local chamber of another layer.(underneath layer)
Regarding claim 2, Soichi discloses (figure A) that each meander-like structure has a curvature around the stacking direction.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Soichi further discloses (figure A) that each meander-like structure includes a first curvature and a second curvature, opposite to or different from the first the first curvature.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Soichi further discloses (figure A) that the local chambers of each layer are separate from another within their layer, so as to be connected one to another only through at least one local chamber of another layer.(underneath layer)
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18, Soichi further discloses (figure A or figure 9) that the local chambers of each layer include identical local chamber. (each layer has two identical local chambers )
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 19, Soichi further discloses (figure A and 9) that at least some local chambers of one layer are mirror images of at least one some local chamber of an adjacent layer. (the upper local chambers are mirror image with the underneath local chamber).
Regarding claims 7 and 15 and 20, Soichi further discloses (figure A, figures 9,4a and 4b) that the stacked plates (40a, 40b) respectively forming the layers, wherein each plate comprises holes (gaps defined between two opposite meander-like structure form holes, hence form local chambers) respectively defining the local chambers, of the corresponding layer.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Soichi discloses (figure 14 and background of the art) that the cooling structure (70) is used as a radiator for CPU cooler of a personal computer, a fan (92) is attached to the cooling structure (70). Therefore, the system comprises the cooling structure and a cooling fan to be used in a personal computer, is considered as a power module. The powder module comprises a main body (fan) and the cooling structure fixed to the main body. (the fan attaches to the cooling structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 9 of Soichi
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soichi in view of Katkar et al (DE 102019205383A1). Regarding claims 9-10, Soichi discloses a cooling structure. However, Soichi does not disclose that the cooler is used to cool an electrical power converter, and a cooling channel that receives the cooling structure in the cooling channel’s cavity. Katkar et al, discloses (figures 1-3) an inverter (KL) that has a cooling structure (WP), a cooling channel (KP) having a cavity having an opening side, wherein the cooling channel is fixed to the power module (the main body DK has an surface OF1 mounted onto the power module) so that the side of the main body (DK) comprising the cooling structure (WP) closes the open side and so that the cooling structure (WP) is received in the cavity of the liquid channel (KP) for a purpose of cooling the power module of the inverter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Katkar et a’s ’s teaching in Soichi device for a purpose of cooling an inverter.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights