DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 4, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Greif et al. (DE 102011089891 A1, from the IDS of 9/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Greif et al. shows a heat sink comprising: a plate-shaped base 110; a plurality of pin fins 122 separately standing on the base; and a plurality of slits located between the pin fins to separate the pin fins, wherein the slits include a plurality of first slits arranged to be straight on the base and a plurality of second slits arranged to be straight on the base and intersecting the first slits (see Figure 5 below), each pin fin includes a pin-fin lower portion 122a being continuous with and standing on the base and a pin- fin upper portion 122b being continuous with and extending from the pin-fin lower portion, and the slit widths corresponding to the pin-fin upper portions are greater than the slit widths corresponding to the pin-fin lower portion (see Fig. 5 below). Regarding claim 3, the cross sections of the pin-fin lower portion and the upper portion have similar shapes. Regarding claim 4, the axial centers of the pin-fin lower portion and the pin-fin upper portion are aligned. Regrading claim 12, since the prior art shows the claimed heat sink, the method is covered by the prior art. Regarding claim 13, the block includes an area 131 where the slits are not to be formed. Regarding claims 14 and 15, a first stage cutting step is performed to form the first slits and a second stage cutting step is performed to form the second slits since the slits have different widths.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greif et al. (DE 102011089891 A1, from the IDS of 9/17/2025). Regarding claim 2, the pin-fin lower portion and the pin-fin upper portion form a stepped shape. Greif et al. does not show a fin width of the pin-fin upper portion is less than a fin width of the pin-fin lower portion, however such an arrangement would have been a matter of design choice since the device will still carry out its intended functions with the modification. Regarding claim 5, the axial centers of the pin-fin lower and upper sections being shifted from each other would have involved a mere change of the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art when the device will still function properly with the modification. Claims 6-11 would have involved a mere change is the size of a component of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the device will still function properly with the modifications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Greif does not disclose the slits include a plurality of intersecting first slits and second slits, each arranged to be straight on the base. Specifically, Applicant argues the slits of Greif are laterally offset.
As annotated below, Greif does teach wherein the first slits and second slits are straight, and intersect, and thus meets the limitations of the claim (see two intersecting slits, in this case corresponding to the upper portion of the pin fins.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tibbott (US20080063524A1) teaches pin fins with a wider lower portion (see Fig. 6/8b, reproduced below)
PNG
media_image3.png
383
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Komazawa (US20200261869A1) teaches pin fins with a wider lower portion (see Fig. 5A/36G, reproduced below)
PNG
media_image4.png
573
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Tursky (DE10134187A1) teaches pin fins with a wider lower portion (see Fig. 3, reproduced below)
PNG
media_image5.png
486
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matushima (JP2016004806A) teaches pin fins with a wider lower portion (see Fig. 2-4, reproduced below)
PNG
media_image6.png
494
934
media_image6.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights