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 § 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) 1, 8-10, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan (US 7545645 B2) in view of Pfeiff (US 20180241103 A1).
As to claim 1, Kuan discloses:
An information handling system (IHS) (computer, see col. 2, lines 22-46; Fig. 1-3) comprising:
an information handling resource 22;
a heatsink 40, coupled to the information handling resource, wherein the heatsink comprises a plurality of fins 401, 402 on a side (top side of flat base beneath fins) of the heatsink away from the information handling resource (entire heatsink is located away from 22), wherein the plurality of fins are configured to create a plurality of air channels 405 that are narrower toward a center (at 408) of the heatsink and wider toward a first edge 406 and a second edge 407 of the heatsink (see col. 2, line 47 – col. 3, line 63) wherein the first edge and the second edge of the heatsink are parallel (see Fig. 1-3), further wherein the first edge and the second edge are straight (see Fig. 1-3) and a third edge and a fourth edge of the heatsink are U-shaped (see curved sidewalls in Fig. 1-3); and
an air mover 50 (cooling fan) configured to drive airflow through the air channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
1536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the third edge and the fourth edge of the heatsink are V-shaped.
However, Pfeiff suggests that a V shape 11 (Fig. 4) is a known alternative for a U shape 11 (Fig. 2);
in order to provide a heatsink/cooling plate with a desired cross-section/cooling channel shape (par. 0011, 0013, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan as suggested by Pfeiff, e.g., providing the edges and/or fins with V-shapes instead of U-shapes:
wherein the third edge and the fourth edge of the heatsink are V-shaped;
in order to provide the heatsink with a desired V-shaped cross-section/cooling channel shape; and/or
since there is no evidence that the change in shape is significant (V versus U).
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 8, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the air mover is arranged to drive the airflow perpendicular to the first edge and the second edge (vertically in Fig. 3; Kuan; from inlet 406 to outlet 407).
As to claim 9, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the heatsink is symmetric (from left to right; Fig. 3; Kuan) about a first axis (from top to bottom, at center 408; Fig. 3; Kuan), wherein the first axis extends between the third edge and the fourth edge (see annotated Fig. in claim 1 above).
As to claim 10, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the heatsink is symmetric (from top to bottom; Fig. 4; Kuan) about a second axis 401 (central fin 401; Fig. 3; Kuan), wherein the second axis extends between the first edge and the second edge.
As to claim 11, Kuan discloses:
A heatsink 40 (Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a flat base (lower flat base beneath fins 401, 402), wherein the flat base is configured as U shape pointing inward toward a center of the heatsink, and a fifth side and a sixth side forming a second U shape pointing inward toward the center; and
a plurality of fins 401, 402 coupled to the flat base, the plurality of fins converging from the first side toward a centerline of the heatsink and diverging from the centerline to the second side.
PNG
media_image2.png
661
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kuan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the flat base is configured as a six-sided polygon having a first side parallel to a second side, a third side and a fourth side forming a first V shape pointing inward toward a center of the heatsink, and a fifth side and a sixth side forming a second V shape pointing inward toward the center.
However, Pfeiff suggests that a V shape 11 (Fig. 4) is a known alternative for a U shape 11 (Fig. 2);
in order to provide a heatsink/cooling plate with a desired cross-section/cooling channel shape (par. 0011, 0013, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan as suggested by Pfeiff, e.g., providing the sides and/or fins with V-shapes instead of U-shapes:
wherein the flat base is configured as a six-sided polygon having a first side parallel to a second side, a third side and a fourth side forming a first V shape pointing inward toward a center of the heatsink, and a fifth side and a sixth side forming a second V shape pointing inward toward the center;
in order to provide the heatsink with a desired V-shaped cross-section/cooling channel shape; and/or
since there is no evidence that the change in shape is significant (V versus U).
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 12, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the heatsink is a single piece 40 (Fig. 2).
Kuan in view of Pfeiff does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the heatsink is a single piece of aluminum.
However, Kuan further discloses that the heat spreader 20 is made of aluminum;
in order to provide a highly thermally conductive material (col. 2, lines 8-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan and Pfeiff as suggested by Kuan, e.g., providing:
wherein the heatsink is a single piece of aluminum;
in order to provide a highly thermally conductive material.
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.
As to claim 13, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the plurality of fins comprises:
a first fin conforming to the first V shape and arranged at the third side and the fourth side (e.g., upper side/fin in Fig. 3 of Kuan; modified with V-shape instead of U-shape); and
a second fin conforming to the second V shape and arranged at the fifth side and the sixth side (e.g., lower side/fin in Fig. 3 of Kuan; modified with V-shape instead of U-shape).
As to claim 14, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the plurality of fins further comprises:
a third fin 401 (Fig. 3; Kuan), equidistant between the first fin and the second fin, wherein the third fin is configured as a straight line extending from the first side to the second side.
As to claim 15, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the plurality of fins further comprises:
a fourth fin (e.g., 3rd fin 402 above 401; Fig. 3; Kuan), disposed between the first fin and the third fin, the fourth fin having a first angle (when V-shaped), wherein the third side and the fourth side form a second angle smaller than the first angle (the angles become more acute as you move outward from straight line 401).
As to claim 16, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the plurality of fins further comprises:
a fifth fin (e.g., 3rd fin 402 below 401; Fig. 3; Kuan), disposed between the second fin and the third fin, the fifth fin having the first angle (same as 3rd fin 402 above 401, upper and lower sides are symmetrical), wherein the third side and the fourth side form the second angle (upper and lower sides are symmetrical, will have identical angles when V-shaped, similarly as the identical curves when U-shaped).
As to claim 17, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein each of the fins have a same height (see Fig. 2; Kuan), and wherein the height is greater than a thickness of the base (see Fig. 2; Kuan).
As to claim 18, Kuan discloses:
A method comprising:
generating heat from an information handling resource 22 (CPU of a computer, see col. 2, lines 22-46; Fig. 1-3) in an information handling system (IHS) (computer), wherein the information handling resource is coupled to a heatsink 40; and
operating an air mover 50 (cooling fan) to create airflow within the IHS, wherein the airflow is directed through a plurality of fins 401, 402 of the heatsink, wherein the fins are configured to create a plurality of air channels 405 that are narrower toward a center (at 408) of the heatsink and wider toward a first edge 406 and a second edge 407 of the heatsink (see col. 2, line 47 – col. 3, line 63), wherein the first edge and the second edge of the heatsink are parallel (see Fig. 1-3), further wherein the first edge and the second edge are straight (see Fig. 1-3) and a third edge and a fourth edge of the heatsink are U-shaped (see curved sidewalls in Fig. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
1536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the third edge and the fourth edge of the heatsink are V-shaped.
However, Pfeiff suggests that a V shape 11 (Fig. 4) is a known alternative for a U shape 11 (Fig. 2);
in order to provide a heatsink/cooling plate with a desired cross-section/cooling channel shape (par. 0011, 0013, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kuan as suggested by Pfeiff, e.g., providing the edges and/or fins with V-shapes instead of U-shapes:
wherein the third edge and the fourth edge of the heatsink are V-shaped;
in order to provide the heatsink with a desired V-shaped cross-section/cooling channel shape; and/or
since there is no evidence that the change in shape is significant (V versus U).
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 19, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
further comprising: removing heat from the information handling resource via the airflow (see Abstract, see col. 2, line 47 – col. 3, line 63; Kuan).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan (US 7545645 B2) in view of Pfeiff (US 20180241103 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Ma (US 20050063159 A1).
As to claim 2, Kuan in view of Pfeiff discloses:
wherein the information handling resource 22 is implemented as a semiconductor die package (e.g., a semiconductor chip package – CPU; see col. 2, lines 22-46; Fig. 1-3; Kuan).
Kuan in view of Pfeiff does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the heatsink is coupled directly to the semiconductor die package.
However, Ma discloses:
wherein the heatsink 100 is coupled directly (at base 200; par. 0017) to the semiconductor die package (CPU, bridge chip, graphics chip, DIMM);
in order to provide direct contact with heat-generating devices such as the CPU, the south/north bridge chips, the graphics chip, and the DIMM's, avoiding damages due to overheating (see par. 0016, 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan and Pfeiff as suggested by Ma, e.g., providing:
wherein the heatsink is coupled directly to the semiconductor die package;
in order to provide direct contact with heat-generating devices such as the CPU, the south/north bridge chips, the graphics chip, and the DIMM's, avoiding damages due to overheating.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 3, Kuan in view of Pfeiff and Ma discloses:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a processing unit (CPU; see col. 2, lines 22-46; Kuan, par. 0016; Ma).
As to claim 4, Kuan in view of Pfeiff and Ma discloses:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a peripheral device (bridge chip, graphics chip, DIMM; par. 0016; Ma).
As to claim 20, Kuan in view of Pfeiff does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a peripheral device, and wherein generating heat from the information handling resource includes powering on and operating the peripheral device.
However, Ma discloses:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a peripheral device (bridge chip, graphics chip, DIMM; par. 0004, 0016), and wherein generating heat from the information handling resource includes powering on and operating the peripheral device (operating the devices generates heat which requires dissipation (par. 0004, 0016, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kuan and Pfeiff as suggested by Ma, e.g., providing:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a peripheral device, and wherein generating heat from the information handling resource includes powering on and operating the peripheral device;
in order to dissipate heat from a peripheral device.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan (US 7545645 B2) in view of Pfeiff (US 20180241103 A1) and Ma (US 20050063159 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Eliyahu (US 20210294386 A1).
As to claim 5, Kuan in view of Pfeiff and Ma does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a storage drive.
However, Eliyahu discloses:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a storage drive 156 (par. 0045; Fig. 11);
in order to reduce the operating temperature of an SSD (par. 0045).
Examiner Note – a solid state drive (SSD) is also considered to be a semiconductor die package as required by claim 2 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan in view of Pfeiff and Ma as suggested by Eliyahu, e.g., providing:
wherein the information handling resource comprises a storage drive;
in order to dissipate heat from and reduce the operating temperature of an SSD.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuan (US 7545645 B2) in view of Pfeiff (US 20180241103 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shabbir (US 20200042052 A1).
As to claim 6, Kuan in view of Pfeiff does not explicitly disclose:
a chassis, wherein the information handling resource and the heatsink are disposed within the chassis.
However, Shabbir discloses:
a chassis 100, 200 (Fig. 1-2) , wherein the information handling resource 104, 103, 204, 203 and the heatsink 116, 216 are disposed within the chassis (par. 0023, 0035);
in order to house the components of the information handling system IHS (par. 0023, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuan in view of Pfeiff as suggested by Shabbir, e.g., providing:
a chassis, wherein the information handling resource and the heatsink are disposed within the chassis;
in order to house the components of the information handling system IHS.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested “Pfeiff does not teach a V-shape pointing inward toward a center of a heat sink” (Remarks, p. 7).
In response, Examiner finds this argument is unpersuasive, since Kuan already teaches a heat sink with convergent/divergent pattern fins with a U-shape pointing inward toward the center of the heat sink. Pfeiff is merely relied upon for suggesting U-shapes and V-shapes as recognized alternatives in heat sink fins.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
844
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
398
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1002
1534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1002
1534
media_image6.png
Greyscale
U-shaped convergent-divergent pattern fins of Kuan V-shaped convergent-divergent fins as modified
Further, Applicant has not provided any evidence that the V-shape is critical/significant over the U-shape.
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 JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (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 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
