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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 13, 18, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/05/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B- Fig 2; Species AC- Fig 6; Species BA- Fig 7, in the reply filed on 1/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no language in the restriction requirement regarding (A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)); and
(B) There would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP § 803.02, § 808, and § 808.02). from the MPEP. This is not found persuasive because pages 2-3 clearly address this issue and therefore the argument is not considered responsive to the restriction requirement since errors are not pointed out with the already addresses issue. Additionally, as applicant has requested:
Searching would be required in
Species A- Figs 1- F28D 2021/0028, at least;
Species B- Fig 2- H05K 7/209, at least;
Species AA- Fig 4- F28F 3/027, at least;
Species AB- Fig 5- F28F 3/046 , at least;
Species AC- Fig 6- F28F 1/124, at least;
Species BA- Fig 7- F28F 1/126, at least;
Species BB- Fig 8- F28F 1/14, at least.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. US 2025/0305777 Al.
Re claim 1, Chen et al. teach a fluidic heat exchanger, comprising: a first plate (bottom plate portion of 1, to include bottom 121, 115 portions when assembled), a second plate (3), an inlet port, an outlet port (13), and a plurality of flow dividers (annotated fig, along with connecting walls ); wherein the first plate is thermally couplable to a heat source (para 1-2); wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged orthogonal to the first plate and are arranged orthogonal to the second plate (figs); wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged in parallel between the inlet port and the outlet port; wherein the plurality of flow dividers, the first plate (figs), and the second plate form a plurality of venturi flow channels that are arranged in parallel between the inlet port and the outlet port (channels in between 13); wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged into a plurality of flow divider pairs, each flow divider pair including a first of the plurality of flow dividers and a second of the plurality of flow dividers (noting 4 pairs , each have a divider on opposing side); wherein the first of the plurality of flow dividers includes a first surface defining a first waveform; wherein the second of the plurality of flow dividers includes a second surface defining a second waveform (noting opposing sides have two complimentary waveforms); wherein the second surface is symmetrically opposed to the first surface along a longitudinal axis defined between the inlet port and the outlet port; wherein the second surface being symmetrically opposed to the first surface defines a plurality of flow restriction elements (noting giving the specification, it appears the “flow restriction elements” and are part of the same structure as the “flow dividers”, and therefore the very tips of the “flow dividers” of Chen farthest extending from the connecting walls are considered the “flow restriction elements” ) and a plurality of expansion chambers in the venturi flow channel (noting the channel is not uniform and some parts expand and contract); and wherein the plurality of flow restriction elements and the plurality of expansion chambers are alternatingly arranged in series between the inlet port and the outlet port (figs ).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Chen et al. teach further comprising a plurality of pins (125) being affixed to and projecting orthogonally from the first plate, wherein the plurality of pins are disposed in the plurality of expansion chambers.
Re claim 3, Chen et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of pins is cylindrically-shaped (figs).
Re claim 4, Chen et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of pins has a frustoconical shape (figs).
Re claim 6, Chen et al. teach further comprising the plurality of pins being affixed to the second plate (in the final assembly all parts are fixed to each other).
Re claim 7, Chen et al. teach wherein the first waveform defined by the first of the plurality of flow dividers comprises a sinusoidal waveform, and the second waveform defined by the second of the plurality of flow dividers comprises a sinusoidal waveform (figs).
Re claim 9, Chen et al. teach wherein the first plate is formed from a thermally conductive material (para 58).
Re claim 14, Chen et al. teach further comprising the plurality of flow dividers being arranged in parallel and arranged transverse to a longitudinal axis defined between the inlet port and the outlet port (figs).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al..
Re claim 5, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form each of the plurality of pins is fabricated from a thermally conductive material for increased heat transfer and structural stability (also noting metal is used in the heat exchanger , para 58), since 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 10, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the second plate is fabricated from a thermally conductive material for increased heat transfer and structural stability (also noting metal is used in the heat exchanger , para 58), since 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 12, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form each of the plurality of flow dividers is fabricated from a thermally conductive material (also noting metal is used in the heat exchanger , para 58), since 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Parida US 20130233523 A1.
Re claim 11, Chen et al. fail to explicitly teach a thermally insulative material.
Parida teach wherein the second plate is fabricated from a thermally insulative material (para 28) to construct the top with a heat shield effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a thermally insulative material as taught by Parida in the Chen et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for thermal protection from ambient environment and to insulate the inlet and outlets.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 20210259141 A1 in view of Chen et al..
Re claim 15, Kim et al. teach a cooling system for a solid state electronic power module (131, 133, para 36-37), comprising: a fluidic circuit including a fluidic heat exchanger (para 29), a pump (11), a radiator (14), and a sump (12), wherein the fluidic circuit contains a heat transfer fluid (fig 1).
Kim et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the fluidic heat exchanger.
Chen et al. teach wherein the fluidic heat exchanger includes a first plate, an inlet port, an outlet port, and a plurality of flow dividers; wherein the first plate is thermally coupled to the solid state electronic power module (paras 1-2); wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged orthogonal to the first plate; wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged in parallel between the inlet port and the outlet port; wherein the plurality of flow dividers and the first plate form a plurality of venturi flow channels that are arranged in parallel between the inlet port and the outlet port; wherein the plurality of flow dividers are arranged into a plurality of flow divider pairs, each flow divider pair including a first of the plurality of flow dividers and a second of the plurality of flow dividers; wherein the first of the plurality of flow dividers includes a first surface defining a first waveform; wherein the second of the plurality of flow dividers includes a second surface defining a second waveform; wherein the second surface is symmetrically opposed to the first surface along a longitudinal axis defined between the inlet port and the outlet port; wherein the second surface being symmetrically opposed to the first surface defines a plurality of flow restriction elements and a plurality of expansion chambers in the venturi flow channel; and wherein the plurality of flow restriction elements and the plurality of expansion chambers are alternatingly arranged in series between the inlet port and the outlet port (see the rejection of claim 1) to enhance a fluidic heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the fluidic heat exchanger as taught by Chen et al. in the Kim et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat removal.
Re claim 16, Chen et al. teach further comprising a plurality of pins being affixed to and projecting orthogonally from the first plate, wherein the plurality of pins are disposed in the plurality of expansion chambers (see the rejection of claim 2) to enhance a fluidic heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the fluidic heat exchanger as taught by Chen et al. in the Kim et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat removal.
Re claim 17, Chen et al. teach wherein the first waveform defined by the first flow divider comprises a sinusoidal waveform, and the second waveform defined by the second waveform comprises a sinusoidal waveform (see the rejection of claim 7) to enhance a fluidic heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the fluidic heat exchanger as taught by Chen et al. in the Kim et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat removal.
Re claim 19, Chen et al. teach wherein the first plate is formed from a thermally conductive material (see the rejection of claim 9) to enhance a fluidic heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the fluidic heat exchanger as taught by Chen et al. in the Kim et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat removal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7032651 B2, US 20120170222 A1, US 20240074099 A1, US 20250180307 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights