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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in Pages 6 and 7 of the remarks regarding the directions, Examiner respectfully disagrees since in order for the fluid to enter into the inlet (50) and exist from the outlet (55), the fluid must flow in a longitudinal direction of the supply channel (65). Furthermore, Bandhauer disclosed in ¶ [0056] that ” While the inlets 50 and outlets 55 are shown in the figures and discussed herein as being through the top plate 60 of the manifold assembly 40, in other embodiments the inlets and/or outlets can extend through any of the sides of the manifold assembly, or even a combination of sides and top plate of the manifold assembly”.
In response to applicant's argument in Page 8 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees since under the broadest reasonable interpretation Bandhauer teaches wherein the second support member (portion that is above 35) contacts an end area of the second heating body (see in Figures 4 and 8 where the portion that is above 35 contacts an end area of 30).
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a support member.
The aforementioned limitation does not meet the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “member” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “configured to support”), and (C) the generic placeholder is modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function (e.g. extending from the supply body and configured to support the supply body with respect to the second heating body).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a supply channel extending from the support body and disposed inside the heat exchange channel, and configured to flow the cooling fluid in a first direction”, in claim 1, was not supported by original specification and thus its meaning cannot be more than what is disclosed in the drawings.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Bandhauer (US20250107038A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bandhauer teaches a heat sink apparatus (15: see Figure 5) comprising:
a heating body (100: see Figure 7) configured to receive heat from an external heat source (140 and/or 145);
a supplier (60) supported by the heating body (100) and configured to supply a cooling fluid (via 50); and
a jet ejection part ( jet ejection part of 65) provided in the supplier (60) and configured to inject the cooling fluid supplied by the supplier toward the heating body (see Figures 7 and 8),
wherein the heating body (100) comprises:
a first heating body (flat portion of 100);
a second heating body (30) extending from the first heating body and configured to support the supplier (60: see Figure 8); and
a heat exchange channel (channel of 125) disposed adjacent to the second heating body (30) and configured to guide flow of the cooling fluid injected from the jet ejection part (jet ejection part of 65: see Figure 8),
wherein the supplier (60) comprises:
a supply body (flat portion of 60) spaced apart from the second heating body (30: see Figure 8);
a support member (portion that is above 35: see Figure 8) extending from the supply body and configured to support the supply body with respect to the second heating body (30: see Figure 8); and
a supply channel (65) extending from the support body (flat portion of 60) and disposed inside the heat exchange channel (channel of 125: see Figure 8), and configured to flow the cooling fluid in a first direction (i.e. from the side of “inlet” to the side of “outlet” as seen in Figure 5), the first direction corresponding to a longitudinal direction of the supply channel ( Examiner notes that in order for the fluid to enter into the inlet (50) and exist from the outlet (55), the fluid must flow in a longitudinal direction of the supply channel (65). Furthermore, Bandhauer disclosed in ¶ [0056] that ” While the inlets 50 and outlets 55 are shown in the figures and discussed herein as being through the top plate 60 of the manifold assembly 40, in other embodiments the inlets and/or outlets can extend through any of the sides of the manifold assembly, or even a combination of sides and top plate of the manifold assembly”).
Regarding claim 3, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the second heating body (30) and the heat exchange channel (channel of 125) are provided as a plurality of second heating bodies and a plurality of heat exchange channels (see Figures 7 and 8), and the second heating bodies and the heat exchange channels are arranged alternately on the first heating body (flat portion of 100: see Figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Bandhauer further teaches wherein a longitudinal direction of the supply channel (65) is parallel to a longitudinal direction of the heat exchange channel (channel of 125: see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Bandhauer further teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the supply channel (65) is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the heat exchange channel (channel of 125: see in Figures 7 and 8 where 65 smaller than the heat exchange channel of 125, i.e. space between the two adjacent 105).
Regarding claim 7, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the support member comprises: a pair of first support members arranged on both sides of the supply body (the two end walls on the left and the right of 60, as shown in Figure 3); and a second support member disposed between the pair of first support members (portion that is above 35: see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Bandhauer further teaches wherein a length of the second support member (portion that is above 35) is smaller than a length of the supply channel (65: see in Figures 7 and 8 where length of the portion that is above 35 is smaller than a length of 65).
Regarding claim 9, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the supplier (60) further comprises a gas collector (35) disposed adjacent to the supply channel (65) and connected to the heat exchange channel (the heat exchange channel of 125: see Figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the gas collector (35) is connected to an upper surface of the heat exchange channel (see in Figure 8 where 35 is connected to the upper surface of the heat exchange channel of 125).
Regarding claim 11, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the jet ejection part (jet ejection part of 65) comprises a jet hole (25) formed to pass through the supply channel (65) and configured to inject the cooling fluid to the heat exchange channel (see in Figure 8 jet holes 25).
Regarding claim 12, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the jet hole comprises: a first jet hole (jet hole on 75) disposed to face the first heating body (flat portion of 100) and configured to flow the cooling fluid in a second direction (i.e. vertical direction as shown in Figure 8) orthogonal to the first direction to collide with the first heating body (see Figure 8); and a second jet hole (jet hole on 70) disposed to face the second heating body (30) and configured to flow the cooling fluid in a third direction (i.e. horizontal direction as shown in Figure 8) to collide with the second heating body (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 14, Bandhauer further teaches further comprising: an inlet (50: see Figure 5) through which the cooling fluid flows into the supplier; and an outlet (55) through which the cooling fluid is discharged from the heating body (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the inlet (50) comprises: an inlet body (body of 50) extending from the supply body and disposed to face one end of the heat exchange channel (see in Figure 7 where body of 50 is extending from the flat portion of 60 and face the upper end of the heat exchange channel); and an inlet hole (hole of 50) formed to pass through the inlet body in the longitudinal direction of the supply channel and connected to one end of the supply channel (Bandhauer’s hole of 50 on the side which would make hole of 50 pass through the body of 50 in the longitudinal direction of the supply channel and connected to the upper end of 65), and the outlet comprises a first outlet hole (hole of 55) spaced apart from the inlet hole (hole of 50) and connected to the other end of the heat exchange channel (lower end of the heat exchange channel: see Figures 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 20, Bandhauer further teaches wherein a length of the second support member (portion that is above 35) is smaller than a length of each of the pair of first support members (see in Figure 3 and cf. Figure 8 where a length the portion that is above 35 is smaller than a length of the two end walls on the left and the right of 60, as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 21, Bandhauer further teaches wherein the second support member (portion that is above 35) contacts an end area of the second heating body (see in Figures 4 and 8 where the portion that is above 35 contacts an end area of 30).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer (US20250107038A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Bandhauer does not teach wherein the supplier is made of a material having lower thermal conductivity than the heating body, wherein the supplier is made of an insulating material.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the supplier of Bandhauer to be made out of an insulating material and arrive at the claimed invention since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of increasing the heat dissipation efficiency by allow the cooling fluid to absorb the heat directly from the heating body.
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights