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, 3-7, 11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2018/174484 – hereinafter, “Kim”).
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches (In Figs 2-6) a heat dissipation device, comprising: a liquid-cooling plate (10), wherein the liquid-cooling plate has a first surface (12), a second surface (11) opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface (Left surface of 10 in Fig 4, see Fig 6) connected to the first surface and the second surface, wherein the first surface (12) is used for installing of electronic components (16, 18, see Fig 3); reinforcing portion (31) protruding from the second surface (See Fig 2), wherein a region of the second surface where the reinforcing portion is not disposed is a first region; and a heat-exchange fin (70) disposed on the first region and a surface of the reinforcing portion (See Fig 2), wherein the liquid-cooling plate defines a cooling flow channel (30) in the liquid cooling plate, and defines a liquid inlet (19a) and a liquid outlet (19b), both the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are defined in the reinforcing portion and open at the first side surface (See Figs 4, 6), and both the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are in communication with the cooling flow channel (The openings are in communication with 30 to allow the liquid to flow into and out of 30).
With respect to claim 11, Kim teaches (In Figs 2-5) an electronic device, comprising a heat dissipation device installed in the electronic device (“The converter according to the present embodiment is an electronic device provided in an automobile, an air conditioner, and the like,”), wherein the heat dissipation device comprises a liquid-cooling plate (10), wherein the liquid-cooling plate has a first surface (12), a second surface (11) opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface (Left surface of 10 in Fig 4, see Fig 6) connected to the first surface and the second surface, wherein the first surface (12) is used for installing of electronic components (16, 18, see Fig 3); reinforcing portion (31) protruding from the second surface (See Fig 2), wherein a region of the second surface where the reinforcing portion is not disposed is a first region; and a heat-exchange fin (70) disposed on the first region and a surface of the reinforcing portion (See Fig 2), wherein the liquid-cooling plate defines a cooling flow channel (30) in the liquid cooling plate, and defines a liquid inlet (19a) and a liquid outlet (19b), both the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are defined in the reinforcing portion and open at the first side surface (See Figs 4, 6), and both the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet are in communication with the cooling flow channel (The openings are in communication with 30 to allow the liquid to flow into and out of 30).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Kim further teaches that the liquid-cooling plate has a second side surface (Top surface of 10) and a third side surface (Bottom surface of 10), wherein the second side surface and the third side surface are disposed opposite to each other and are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the first side surface (See Figs 4-5); and the reinforcing portion comprises a first reinforcing member (Top horizontal portion of 31 in Fig 4), wherein the first reinforcing member is disposed adjacent to at least one of the second side surface or the third side surface (The top horizontal portion of 31 in Fig 4 is disposed adjacent the top surface of 10, see Fig 4), and the first reinforcing member protrudes from the second surface by a preset height (See Fig 5).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Kim further teaches that a central axis of the liquid inlet is parallel to a central axis of the liquid outlet (See Fig 4, 22 and 24 are parallel to each other and so too is the liquid inlet and liquid outlet), and an extending direction of the first reinforcing member is parallel to the central axis of the liquid inlet and the central axis of the liquid outlet (The first reinforcing member, and the central axis of the liquid inlet and liquid outlet are all parallel to each other, see Fig 4).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Kim further teaches wherein the reinforcing portion (31) comprises a third reinforcing strip (Horizontal portion of 31 adjacent the end of the callout line for element 30), the third reinforcing strip is disposed on the second surface (11), and an extending direction of the third reinforcing strip is parallel to the central axis of the liquid inlet (See Fig 4); and/or the reinforcing portion comprises a fourth reinforcing strip, the fourth reinforcing strip is disposed on the second surface, and an extending direction of the fourth reinforcing strip is parallel to the central axis of the liquid outlet.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Kim further teaches that wherein a portion of the heat-exchange fin disposed on the reinforcing portion is flush with an end of a portion of the heat-exchange fin disposed on the first region, wherein the end of the portion of the heat-exchange fin on the first region is away from the liquid-cooling plate (See Fig 5, the end of the fin in the 1st region the end of the fin that is attached to the reinforcing portion appear to be flush, both ending the same distance from 11).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Kim further teaches that a central axis of the liquid inlet is parallel to a central axis of the liquid outlet (See Fig 4), and an extending direction of the heat-exchange fin is parallel to the central axis of the liquid inlet and the central axis of the liquid outlet (The fin extends in three directions, in Fig 4 it is up and down, left and right, and into/out of the page. Since the fin extends left to right, as does the central axis of the inlet and outlet, it can be said that the extending direction of the fin is parallel to the central axis of the inlet and outlet, as claimed).
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.
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Gramm et al. (WO 2007/065666 – hereinafter, “Gramm”).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Kim teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a plurality of protruding ridges are disposed on the heat-exchange fin, an extending direction of each of the plurality of protruding ridges is the same as an extending direction of the heat-exchange fin, and the plurality of protruding ridges are configured to increase a heat dissipation area of the heat-exchange fin.
Gramm, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a plurality of protruding ridges are disposed on a heat-exchange fin (32), an extending direction of each of the plurality of protruding ridges is the same as an extending direction of the heat-exchange fin, and the plurality of protruding ridges are configured to increase a heat dissipation area of the heat-exchange fin (See Fig 3, each fin 32 has ridges which run the length of the fin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gramm with that of Kim, such that Kim includes a plurality of protruding ridges disposed on the heat-exchange fin, an extending direction of each of the plurality of protruding ridges is the same as an extending direction of the heat-exchange fin, and the plurality of protruding ridges are configured to increase a heat dissipation area of the heat-exchange fin, as taught by Gramm, since doing so would increase the surface area of the heat-exchange fin of Kim thus increasing the heat dissipation from the heat dissipation device.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Choobineh et al. (US 2021/0398878 – hereinafter, “Choobineh”).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Kim teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as per above and Kim further teaches that the cooling flow channel has a parallel structure or a series structure (Fig 5 shows that the cooling flow channel has a series structure).
Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest a distribution density of the cooling flow channel in a region of the first surface is in proportion to an amount of heat generated by electronic components in the region of the first surface.
Choobineh, however, teaches a distribution density of a cooling flow channel in a region of a first surface is in proportion to an amount of heat generated by electronic components in the region of the first surface (¶ 0039, “Conversely for non-uniform heat generation or heat flux (e.g., distinct heat areas formed in package 10), the density of channels 106 in a higher heat flux region (e.g., centralized portion of top portion 102) is increased”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choobineh with that of Kim such that, in Kim a distribution density of the cooling flow channel in a region of the first surface is in proportion to an amount of heat generated by electronic components in the region of the first surface as taught by Choobineh, since doing so would allow for the heat dissipation device of Kim to provide more cooling to high heat flux regions thus reducing the temperature of the high heat flux regions and preventing failure or overheating of the electronic components.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chen (US 12,004,323).
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest turbulent teeth are disposed spaced apart from each other inside the cooling flow channel.
Chen, however, teaches wherein turbulent teeth (151) are disposed spaced apart from each other inside a cooling flow channel (See Fig 1D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen with that of Kim such that, in Kim, turbulent teeth are disposed spaced apart from each other inside the cooling flow channel, as taught by Chen, since doing so would increase heat transfer to the liquid within the cooling flow channel.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Shabbir et al. (US 2018/0341301 – hereinafter, “Shabbir”).
With respect to claim 20, Kim teaches many of the limitations of claim 20 as per the above rejection to claim 1 and Kim further teaches an electricity consumption device (“air conditioner, and the like”), comprising an electronic device (“converter”), the electronic device comprises a heat dissipation device (10) installed in the electronic device (“The converter according to the present embodiment is an electronic device provided in an automobile, an air conditioner, and the like,”).
Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest an electricity-consumption device, comprising an electronic device, wherein the electronic device is configured to perform waveform conversion and/or voltage conversion on a municipal alternating current (AC) power to provide electrical energy for the electricity-consumption device, and the electronic device comprises a heat dissipation device installed in the electronic device.
Shabbir, however, teaches an electricity-consumption device, comprising an electronic device (10+14+18), wherein the electronic device is configured to perform waveform conversion and/or voltage conversion on a municipal alternating current (AC) power to provide electrical energy for the electricity-consumption device (¶ 0023, “and a plurality of power supplies 18 that provide electrical energy to information handling systems 10.” where it is well-known that a rack + information handling system uses municipal AC power which is provided to the power supply which converts the AC power to power for use by the information handling system) and the electronic device (10+14+18) comprises a heat dissipation device (cold plate) installed in the electronic device (¶ 0027, “although not shown in FIG. 1 for descriptive clarity, information handling system 10 and/or rack 14 may include corresponding fluidic conduits as well as heat exchangers (e.g., cold plates, heat sinks, etc.) thermally coupled to components (e.g., CPUs 26, power supplies 18, etc.) of information handling system 10”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shabbir with that of Kim, such that Kim includes an electricity-consumption device, comprising an electronic device, wherein the electronic device is configured to perform waveform conversion and/or voltage conversion on a municipal alternating current (AC) power to provide electrical energy for the electricity-consumption device, and the electronic device comprises a heat dissipation device installed in the electronic device, as taught by Shabbir, since doing so would allow for the device of Kim to be used with devices that require conversion from municipal AC power.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claims 1, 11, and 20 (Present remarks pp. 7-12) the Examiner agrees and notes the previous rejections to claims 1, 11, and 20 have been withdrawn. However, a new grounds rejection is provided above in view of Kim where Kim is believed to resolve the noted deficiency or deficiencies.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are believed to be anticipated by Kim, and claim 20 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Kim and Shabbir.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights