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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 and 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/4/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/27/24 and 3/4/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third kind of channels” of claims 11-13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitation of “the first kind of channels and the second kind of channels differ such that an amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel is different to an amount of fluid flowing through the second kind of channel” which includes use language. Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as reading “the first kind of channels and the second kind of channels are configured to differ such that an amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel is different to an amount of fluid flowing through the second kind of channel”.
Claim 2 includes the limitation of “the difference in the amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel and the second kind of channel is between a factor of 1.1 and 5” which is use language. Thus this language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as reading “the difference in the amount of fluid configured to flow through the first kind of channel and the second kind of channel is between a factor of 1.1 and 5”.
Further, claim 2 is unclear as the limitation of “the difference in the amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel and the second kind of channel is between a factor of 1.1 and 5”. This would be unclear to one skilled in the art. It is not clear if this is measurement of the amount in the channels or a flow rate, further it is unclear if this is a single channel to single channel comparison or if it is a total of one type channel to another. Thus any reading possible of these will be considered to read on the limitation.
the first kind of channel has a first flow resistance and the second kind of channel has a second flow resistance, wherein the first flow resistance and the second flow resistance are different
Claim 5 is unclear as the limitation of “the first kind of channel has a first flow resistance and the second kind of channel has a second flow resistance, wherein the first flow resistance and the second flow resistance are different”. This would be unclear to one skilled in the art. It is not clear if this is measurement of the resistance in the individual channels or the total of the channel types. Thus any reading possible of these will be considered to read on the limitation.
Claims 11 and 12 are recites the limitation "third kind of channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 5-6, 11-17 are rejected for dependence form one or more of the above rejected claims.
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)(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.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Olesen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0032230).
Regarding claim 1, Olesen teaches a cooler (element 1) for an electronic component (elements 5) comprising a base plate (element 2) having an outer surface (contacting elements 5)and an inner surface (flat surface which element s19 come off of), wherein channel walls (elements 19) are arranged on the inner surface (per fig. 2 & 3) defining fluid channels (per fig. 2), wherein at least a first kind of channels (elements 11 & 12) and a second kind of channels (“cells” defined by 13 & 14; para. 0043) are provided, wherein a geometry of the first kind of channels and the second kind of channels differ (per fig. 2 & 3) such that an amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel is different to an amount of fluid flowing through the second kind of channel (note this is inherent as the fluid in the manifold is the total of the individual cells).
Regarding claim 5, Olesen teaches the first kind of channel has a first flow resistance and the second kind of channel has a second flow resistance, wherein the first flow resistance and the second flow resistance are different (inherent in the size and number of turns in cells verse the manifolds the resistances would be different), .
Regarding claim 6, Olesen teaches the first flow resistance and/or the second flow resistance of the channels depends on a fluid flow direction (inherent in the structure as the changes in shape, and thus their effects on pressure change (resistance) vary based on direction – for example the leaving element 10 and splitting is a different pressure change than merging at 10 to leave).
Regarding claim 11, Olesen teaches wherein the channel walls of the second channels comprise structures causing a reverse flow in one flow direction and a straight flow in the opposite direction (per annotated fig. 3 below; this is reasonable rad on by the curves resulting in flow heading the opposite direction from the previous part of the channel).
Regarding claim 12, Olesen teaches the second channels comprise alternating curved sections (per annotated fig. 3 above), wherein a reversing channel is located at each curved section (per annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 13, Olesen teaches the second channels comprise an elongated section (per annotated fig. 3 above) between each curved section (per annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 14, Olesen teaches an incoming end (per annotated fig. 3 above) of an outer wall (per annotated fig. 3 above) of the reversing channel is flush with an outer wall of the elongated section (per annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 17, Olesen teaches a semiconductor power module comprising a cooler according to claim 1 (per claim 1 above and para. 0003).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0032230).
Regarding claim 2, Olesen does not expressly teach the difference in the amount of fluid flowing through the first kind of channel and the second kind of channel is between a factor of 1.1 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Olesen to meet this ratio as it is simple matter of the number of cells used, and by reducing to 2:1->5 ratio this would be met, it is further noted such a range is taught as the claims only require one or more cells and the specification teaches appliciaotn based on items being cooled (para. 0020) , since it has been held that omission of an essential elements and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 15, Olesen teaches the base plate s rectangular (per fig. 3) having a width and a length (per fig. 3).
Olesen does not teach the lengths is at least three times the width. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to make this the lengths is at least three times the width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)
Regarding claim 16, Olesen does not teach the base plate is manufactured by hot or cold forging. This is a product-by-process claim and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” MPEP 21413 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent 9,439,325), Chang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0226539), Goodson et al. (U.S. Patent 7,334,630), and Dogiamis et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0399249) teach coolers for electronics with multiple channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights