METHOD FOR PRODUCING A HEAT SINK

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 Applicant elected Group 1 claims 1 – 14 & 16 - 20 in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups should be examined together and that the International Searching Authority (ISA) did not reject these claims for lack of unity of invention, even though the ISA was considering the same prior art. This is not found persuasive because under PCT Rule 13.2 the technical feature of the heat sink configured to fit in place in the supporting structure is not a special technical feature since it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Examiner notes that the ISA does not apply U.S. patent law when examining applications on merit. Examiner appreciates Applicants correction of Claims associated to the corresponding groups. Group 1, claims 1-14 & 16-20, Group 2, claim 15. Prior art of Record The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows; U.S. 2013/0344632 Becker et al. (‘Becker hereafter), App 14/003828, U.S. 2022/0166423 Salvatore et al. (‘Salvatore hereafter), App 17/101621, The above references w Li et al.ill be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above. Claim status: Claims 1 - 20 are currently being examined. Claim 15 has been withdrawn. Claims 4 - 6, 12 and 17- 19 are objected to for allowable subject matter. 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject mattexter 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. Claim 1 - 3, 7, 9 - 11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0344632 Becker et al. (‘Becker hereafter). Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: A workpiece set (‘Becker, Fig 1 shows a workpiece set #20, #30 and #40), comprising: a supporting structure (‘Becker, Fig 1, system of #20 (LED mounted circuit board), and #30 (film or layer)); and a blank of a heat sink (‘Becker, Fig 1, #40 (heat sink)) configured to fit in place in the supporting structure (‘Becker, Fig 1, system of #20 and #30), wherein the supporting structure (‘Becker, Fig 1, system of #20 & #30) has an inner dimension configured to receive the blank (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below), “-A-“) of the heat sink (‘Becker, Fig 1, #40 (below)) in a received state (‘Becker, Fig 1 shows a schematic exploded view, received state is upon assembly), wherein the blank of the heat sink comprises: a heat sink base configured to thermally contact an electrical component on a printed circuit board (‘Becker, Para 0004, “One disadvantage of using a thermally conductive structure within the light fixture envelope is that it allows dissipation of heat into the enclosure, which is generally sealed. This effectively raises the ambient temperature of the air surrounding the LEDs, thus compounding thermal related failures.”), which is anchored or anchorable in the supporting structure (‘Becker, Para 0007, “Heat transfer between the LED board and the heat sink is through a fabricated thermal interface pad. Conventional heat sinks are often formed, or stamped from metals including copper and aluminum, in an array of shapes. Normally they have a flat surface or recessed cavity into which the LED board is attached. Prior to attaching the heat sink, a die cut fabricated thermal pad is placed between the heat sink and the LED board.”), and a plurality of fins (‘Becker, Para 0024, “The heat sink 40, shown in FIG. 3, is arranged under the thermal management composition 30. The heat sink 40 as shown in this embodiment is an extruded aluminum fin-type heat sink.”), which in the received state have an extent in a direction of the inner dimension (‘Becker, Fig 1), at least one first fin of the plurality of fins extending over a first dimension from the heat sink base in a first direction (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)), and at least one second fin of the plurality of fins extending over a second dimension from the heat sink base in a second direction opposite the first direction (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)), However, ‘Becker does not teach specifically: an overall dimension of the blank corresponding to a sum of the first dimension and of the second dimension as being greater than the inner dimension, but does teach in Fig 1 (below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide 'Becker with the design parameters of the sum of the first dimension and the second dimension to be greater than the inner dimension (‘Becker, “-A-“ Fig 1 (below)), since it has been held that discovering and designing for an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F, 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). and wherein, to fit the blank in place (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)), the plurality fins are shortened or shortenable such that the sum of the first dimension and of the second dimension corresponds to the inner dimension of the supporting structure (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below) is capable of having the plurality of fins being reduced or having a design change in order to shorten the sum of the first dimension) Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Becker with a change in size of the fins since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). and the first dimension or the second dimension defines a position of the heat sink base within the supporting structure (‘Becker, Fig 1). Regarding Claim[s] 2, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein a shortened first dimension or a shortened second dimension for fitting the heat sink in place is a function of a height of the electrical component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Becker with a change in size of the fins since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the blank of the heat sink comprises: a web connecting the fins in a transverse direction (‘Becker, Fig 1, (below), a left direction is traverse from a right direction as shown). Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the heat sink base of the heat sink corresponds unchanged to the heat sink base of the blank, or wherein the heat sink base of the heat sink is machined or additively processed in relation to the heat sink base of the blank (‘Becker, Para 0110, “The most common blades used for screen and stencil printing are either metal or polymer. Metal blades are typically made from stainless steel. The polymer blades, which are commonly called squeegees, are typically made from polyurethane. Squeegees are available in hardness from 60 to 90 shore A. Either metal blades or polymer squeegee blades can be machined or cut to fit into specific mounting equipment, in the case of automatic printing, or can be cut to fit into a simple holder/handle for manual printing. Depending on the print type of pattern being deposited, typically metal blades are used with stencils, since stencils are more durable and polymer squeegees are used with screens since they are more delicate.”). Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein a shortening of the plurality of fins comprises cutting (‘Becker, Para 0110, is capable of being modified by cutting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Becker with a change in size of the fins since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the blank of the heat sink is metallic and/or integrally monolithic (‘Becker, Para 0007, “Heat transfer between the LED board and the heat sink is through a fabricated thermal interface pad. Conventional heat sinks are often formed, or stamped from metals including copper and aluminum, in an array of shapes. Normally they have a flat surface or recessed cavity into which the LED board is attached. Prior to attaching the heat sink, a die cut fabricated thermal pad is placed between the heat sink and the LED board.”). Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction are transverse to a longitudinal direction of the blank of the heat sink (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)). Regarding Claim[s] 13, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein at least one shortened first fin of the plurality of fins has a profile along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink, and wherein the heat sink base corresponds to an indentation of the profile or to a minimum of the first dimension in the profile (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)). Regarding Claim[s] 14, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the blank of the heat sink is produced in a longitudinal direction by extrusion (‘Becker, Para 0024, “ The heat sink 40, shown in FIG. 3, is arranged under the thermal management composition 30. The heat sink 40 as shown in this embodiment is an extruded aluminum fin-type heat sink. Alternatively, the heat sink 40 can be a plate-type heat pipe or a vapor chamber which has a relatively high heat transfer capability due to the phase change mechanism used. Also the heat sink 40 can be a cold plate in which a flow channel is defined for passage of working fluid. Also the heat sink 40 can be made of a highly thermally conductive material, such as copper or its alloys. The heat sink 40 includes a chassis 41 and a plurality of pin fins 42 extending downwardly from the chassis 41. The fins 42 are used for increasing the heat dissipation area of the heat sink 40. Alternatively, the fins 42 can be flat shaped. The fins 42 and the chassis 41 can be formed separately, and then connected together by soldering. The chassis 41 of the heat sink 40 has a top surface that becomes attached to the thermal management composition 30. Alternatively, the heat sink 40 can be a plate-type heat pipe or a vapor chamber which has a relatively high heat transfer capability due to the phase change mechanism used. Also the heat sink 40 can be a cold plate in which a flow channel is defined for passage of working fluid. Also the heat sink 40 can be made of a highly thermally conductive material, such as copper or its alloys.”). Regarding Claim[s] 16, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the heat sink base comprises a surface of the web (‘Becker, Fig 1 (below)). Regarding Claim[s] 20, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the extrusion comprises extrusion molding. (‘Becker, Para 0024, “The heat sink 40 as shown in this embodiment is an extruded aluminum fin-type heat sink.”) Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0344632 Becker et al. (‘Becker hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 2022/0166423 Salvatore et al. (‘Salvatore hereafter). Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Becker discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: supporting structure comprises a housing. However, Salvatore does teach: Abst, “Systems, methods, techniques and apparatuses of power switches are disclosed. One exemplary embodiment is a power switch comprising an outer housing; a power electronics board disposed within the housing and including a semiconductor switch structured to selectively conduct a current between a first power terminal and a second power terminal; a first heat sink coupled to the power electronics board; a plurality of thermally conductive connectors; a second heat sink coupled to the plurality of thermally conductive connectors, a control electronics board structured to control the semiconductor switch, the control electronics board being located within an enclosure formed of the second heat sink, the plurality of thermally conductive connectors, and the power electronics board.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Becker with a housing as taught by ‘Salvatore in order to provide a second heat sink (‘Salvatore, Abst). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 4 with the limitations of claim 3 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "wherein the web and adjacent second fins of the plurality of fins form or enclose a flow channel in the supporting structure.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach fins forming or enclosing a flow channel in the support structure. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 5 with the limitations of claim 3 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "wherein the web is arranged symmetrically in the blank or in the heat sink with respect to the first direction and the second direction, or wherein the web is arranged symmetrically with respect to the first direction and to the second direction in the blank, and by a rotation of 180 degrees the first direction and the second direction are exchangeable for minimizing or preventing a shortening of the first dimension and/or of the second dimension.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach the web is arranged symmetrically in the blank or in the heat sink with respect to the first direction and the second direction, or wherein the web is arranged symmetrically with respect to the first direction and to the second direction in the blank, and by a rotation of 180 degrees the first direction and the second direction are exchangeable for minimizing or preventing a shortening of the first dimension and/or of the second dimension. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 6 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the heat sink base of the heat sink extends transversely to the inner dimension of the supporting structure in the received state, and/or wherein the plurality of fins extend transversely to the heat sink base.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach the heat sink base of the heat sink extends transversely to the inner dimension of the supporting structure in the received state, and/or wherein the plurality of fins extend transversely to the heat sink base. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, Examiner finds no motivation found to modify the prior art to include the specific limitations of dependent claim 17. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 12 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "wherein at least one shortened first fin of the plurality of fins has a profile along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink, and the first dimension corresponds to a projection of the profile or to a maximum of the first dimension in the profile, and/or wherein at least one shortened second fin of the plurality of fins has a profile along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink, and the second dimension corresponds to a projection of the profile or a maximum of the second dimension in the profile.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach wherein at least one shortened first fin of the plurality of fins has a profile along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink, and the first dimension corresponds to a projection of the profile or to a maximum of the first dimension in the profile, and/or wherein at least one shortened second fin of the plurality of fins has a profile along a longitudinal direction of the heat sink, and the second dimension corresponds to a projection of the profile or a maximum of the second dimension in the profile. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 18 with the limitations of claim 9 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the shortening of the plurality of fins comprises milling and/or punching.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach the shortening of the plurality of fins comprises milling and/or punching. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 19 with the limitations of claim 11 and 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction are perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the blank of the heat sink.” The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Becker and ‘Salvatore). ‘Becker and ‘Salvatore does not teach the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction are perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the blank of the heat sink. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited. [AltContent: textbox (indentations)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Web)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second direction)][AltContent: textbox (First direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (-A-)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector] PNG media_image1.png 705 965 media_image1.png Greyscale U.S. 2013/0344632 Figure 1 Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: U.S. 2008/0165502 Furman et al. (‘Furman hereafter) - PATTERNED METAL THERMAL INTERFACE. U.S. 2013/0077253 Thomas George Macall (‘Macall hereafter) - HEAT TRANSFER USING A DURABLE LOW-FRICTION INTERFACE. U.S. 2018/0132353 Predon et al. (‘Predon hereafter) - ELECTRONIC BOARD AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHOD. Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 09/25/2026