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 § 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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17 recite multiple instances of conjunctions “and/or” and “or” (e.g., claim 1, l. 4; claim 7, l. 4; claim 8, l. 5; claim 11, ll. 3; claim 12, l. 9; claim 17, l. 2, etc.).
The combined and nested use of conjunctions “and/or” and “or”, particularly when applied to different elements that may or may not be present together, creates uncertainty as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The layering of multiple alternatives and logical dependencies renders the scope of the claims ambiguous, as one cannot determine with reasonable certainty what combinations are included or excluded. Accordingly the aforementioned claims are indefinite.
Furthermore, claims 3 and 16 recite incomprehensible clauses which render the claims indefinite: “the microstructured region of the surface of the main body is formed on a cooling fin”. It’s not clear how said “microstructured region” can be simultaneously present on the “surface of the main body” and on the “cooling fin” ?.
The remaining dependent claims have been also rejected since they inherit problems of the rejected parent claim(s).
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the reference numbers should be deleted. The Office reminds Applicant that “the presence or absence of…reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim”. See MPEP § 608.01(m)).
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)(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 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0020027 to Gao et al. (hereafter “Gao”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 4B) a cooling plate (104, 112, 124) of a cooler (100), through which fluid can flow (via pipes (302, 304)), for cooling power electronics (102), the cooling plate comprising a main body (104, 112, 124) and a plurality of cooling fins (122A, 122B) which protrude from the main body, wherein a surface (118) of the main body and/or a surface of at least one cooling fin (Fig. 4B) has/have at least one defined microstructured region (114).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 15, as best understood, Gao discloses that the microstructured region (114) of the surface (118) of the main body/fin (112, 122A) is formed by at least one indentation/through (Figs, 2A, 4B; pars. [0034] and [0049]; the regions between the “micropillars” can be considered to be indentations/throughs).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as best understood, Gao discloses that the microstructured region (114) of the surface (118) of the main body (112) is formed on a cooling fin (Fig. 4B) and is arranged upstream of a cooling fin (122A, B) in a flow direction of a coolant (Fig. 2, (114, 122A); Fig. 4A; pars. [0029] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Gao discloses that the microstructured region (114) of the surface (118) of the main body (112) comprises a plurality of indentations arranged such that the microstructured region (114) has a corrugated shape, and/or wherein the microstructured region of the surface of the at least one cooling fin (122A) comprises a plurality of indentations arranged such that the microstructured region has a corrugated shape (Figs. 2, 4B; the regions between the “micropillars” can be considered to be indentations).
Regarding claim 10, Gao discloses that the cooling plate (104, 112, 124) is configured as a pin-fin plate, wherein the cooling fins (122A, 122B) are pin-shaped (see “cylindrical rods” in par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Gao discloses that wherein the microstructured region (114) of the surface (118) of the main body (112) and/or of the surface of the at least one cooling fin (122A, 122B) (Fig. 4B) is produced by a surface treatment of the corresponding surface (par. [0034]).
Examiner’s Note: regarding the method limitations “produced by a surface treatment”, even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”, See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Accordingly, even though the aforementioned method limitations have been met by Gao, these limitations do not have any patentable weight.
Regarding claim 13, Gao discloses a cooler (100) through which fluid can flow (via pipes (302, 304)) for cooling power electronics (102), the cooler (100) comprising a cooling plate (104, 112, 124) and an interior (206) in which the cooling fins (122A, 122B) of the cooling plate are arranged (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 17, as best understood, Gao discloses that the microstructured region (114) of the surface (118) of the main body is formed directly on a cooling fin (122A), (Fig. 4B), wherein the microstructured region (114) preferably extends over a complete height of the cooling fin (122A) or a part of the height/part of the periphery of the cooling fin (122A), (Figs. 2, 4B).
Regarding claim 19, the method limitations of the claim (“provided with a laser”) have not been given patentable weight, since the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”, See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
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.
Claims 5, 9, 14, and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao taken alone.
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 18, Gao does not specifically disclose particular dimensions (i.e., ranges of widths, depths, etc.) of the microstructured regions, indentations, and cooling fins.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any optimal dimensions (i.e., ranges of widths, depths, etc.) of the microstructured regions, indentations, and cooling fins in Gao, including as claimed, in order to achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also, the rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent: See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Also, said claimed dimensions are the result effective variables which effect heat dissipation and cooling efficiency (i.e., the results). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Gao does not disclose a plurality of power electronics units which are arranged in succession in a flow direction of a cooling medium, and the at least one defined microstructured region has a plurality of predefined microstructured regions which are configured in such a way that all power electronics units experience a same cooling capacity.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cooling arrangement of Gao to cool a plurality of power electronics units and to provide corresponding amount of the predefined microstructured regions, if particular application requires so, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, it would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged said plurality of the power electronic units and defined microstructured regions in any optimal way, including as claimed, i.e., in succession in a flow direction of a cooling medium, wherein the at least one defined microstructured region has a plurality of predefined microstructured regions which are configured in such a way that all power electronics units experience the same cooling capacity, in order to predictably achieve desired cooling characteristics, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 12, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gao.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Gao discloses (Fig. 2) that the surface (118) of the main body (112) has a plurality of defined microstructured regions (114), which are each assigned to a cooling fin (122A) and are configured in such a way that an enlargement of the surface area of the main body (112) caused by the microstructured regions (114) increases in a direction of arrangement (i.e., from left to right) of the cooling fins (122A), wherein the direction of arrangement i.e., from left to right) is parallel to a flow direction (212, 214) of a cooling medium, and/or wherein the surface of each cooling fin (122A) of the plurality of cooling fins (122A) has a defined microstructured region (114A) (Figs. 2, 4B), wherein the microstructured regions of the cooling fins are configured such that an enlargement of the surface area of the cooling fins (122A) caused by the microstructured regions (114A) increases in a direction of arrangement of the cooling fins, wherein the direction of arrangement is parallel to a flow direction (212, 214) of a cooling medium (Fig. 2).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged said plurality of the defined microstructured regions in any optimal way, including as claimed, in order to predictably achieve desired cooling characteristics and optimal heat dissipation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various cooling arrangements for electronic devices, wherein said cooling arrangements have cold plates and/or heat spreaders through which cooling fluid flows, wherein some cold plates and/or heat spreaders have microstructured regions formed therein. Furter, the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the US 6, 655, 449 to Hsien (cited in IDS) which could have been also used for statutory rejection of the at least independent claim 1 (see Figs, 1, 2, 5 showing a plurality of cooling fins (3, 3’) protruding from a main body (2) and a plurality of the microstructured regions (25, 31) formed on said fins and/or main body).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835