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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the use of solid gray shading (e.g., see Figs. 8A-13) reduces legibility and does not adequately contrast with the rest of the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m). The drawings will not reproduce well due to the shading and the character of
the lines. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction
characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(1).
(1) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process
which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter
must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and
uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to
permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and
to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses
may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the
invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of
spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded.
Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections.
See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be
thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Fig. 7B” is recited in par. [0029]. However, there is no Fig. 7B precent in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims recite the limitations: “a pump configured to circulate the coolant through the microchannel assembly; and a controller configured to select operating in a laminar flow mode or a turbulent flow mode and operate the pump accordingly”. The specification does not teach how the aforementioned functionality (i.e., the control per se) is accomplished. Furter, it’s not clear what the limitations “to operate the pump accordingly” actually mean (i.e., according to what ?). The relevant portions of the specification (e.g., see pars. [0090]-[0098]) just in generic terms mention that, e.g., “the electronics may be referred to as the "controller," which may control various components or subparts of the system or systems. The controller, depending on the processing requirements and/or the type of system, may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein”, “microcontrollers that execute program instructions (e.g., software)”, etc.
However, there are no details provided how actually the claimed control is accomplished, i.e., there are no type of sensors provided, no control process flow chart, no computer program, no controller’s schematic, no particular feedback loop structure, no timing sequence, no adaptive rule, no threshold logic, no predictive adjustment, etc., i.e., nothing that would enable a person of the ordinary skill to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, after considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the inventor/applicant, no existence of the working examples (as per the current record), and that there is low predictability of the claimed functions in the relevant arts), the Office has concluded that the disclosure fails to enable the full claimed scope and quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07; In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
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 16-29 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.
Independent claim 17 recites the limitations: “the second printed circuit board comprising the first printed circuit board layer”. It’s not clear how said “second circuit board” may comprise “the first circuit board layer”. Evidently the correct limitations should be: “the second printed circuit board comprising the [
Furthermore, claim 18 recites an ungrammatical clause which renders the claim indefinite: “and the second printed circuit board layer [sic] (comprises ?) a second component carrying layer and a second conductive layer.”
Furthermore, claim 20 recites an open-ended clause: “a plurality of flanges configured to connect to the input manifold and the output manifold”. The open-ended limitation “configured to” renders the claim indefinite, since it’s not clear whether the flanges are actually connected to the input and output manifolds or not. The limitations are directed to the assembled end product, and therefore, must explicitly describe said end product, i.e., “a plurality of flanges connected to the input manifold and the output manifold”.
Furthermore, claims 16 and 28 recite unclear and ungrammatical clauses which render the claims indefinite: “a controller configured to select operating [sic] in a laminar flow mode or a turbulent flow mode and operate the pump accordingly [sic]”. The clauses are grammatically defective, syntactically awkward, structurally inconsistent, cumbersome, and imprecise. Appropriate corrections are required, e.g., “a controller configured to select between a laminar flow mode and a turbulent flow mode and to operate the pump accordingly”, etc. Furter, it’s not clear what the limitations “to operate the pump accordingly” actually mean (i.e., according to what ?).
Since remaining dependent claims inherit the aforementioned problems of the parent claim(s), they have been also rejected along with said parent claim(s).
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any additional errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 17 upon which it depends. The claim recites the limitations “the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board”. This subject matter has been previously introduced in line 18 of claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1, 3, 4, 13-15, 17-22, 25-27, 29, and 30, are 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 US 2007/0215325 to Solovitz et al. (hereafter “Solovitz”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Solovitz discloses (Figs. 1-3) a cooling system for a power circuit of a substrate processing tool, the cooling system comprising: a microchannel assembly (Fig. 3) comprising an input manifold (12, 16, 30), an output manifold (14, 18, 32), and a microchannel layer (8, 26, 56, 66, 76) comprising a plurality of microchannels (26, 56) extending from the input manifold to the output manifold and configured to pass a coolant from the input manifold to the output manifold; and a printed circuit board (Fig. 3) comprising at least one component carrying layer (62, 72), wherein the at least one component carrying layer is attached to the microchannel layer between the input manifold and the output manifold, and wherein the at least one component carrying layer comprises the power circuit including a plurality of electrical components (80, 82) configured to power one or more electrical components of the substrate processing tool, wherein the microchannel layer is disposed between layers of the printed circuit board such that the microchannel layer is embedded in the printed circuit board (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 30, Solovitz discloses (Figs. 1-3) a cooling system for a power circuit of a substrate processing tool, the cooling system comprising: a microchannel assembly comprising an input manifold (12, 16, 30), an output manifold (14, 18, 32), and a microchannel member (26, 66) comprising a plurality of microchannels (26) extending from the input manifold to the output manifold and configured to pass a coolant from the input manifold to the output manifold; and a plurality of printed circuit board layers comprising a first printed circuit board layer (64) and a second printed circuit board layer (8), wherein the first printed circuit board layer is disposed on and contacts a first side of the microchannel member, wherein the second printed circuit board layer is disposed on and contacts a second side of the microchannel member, and wherein the plurality of printed circuit board layers comprise the power circuit (62, 68, 80) including a plurality of electrical components (80) configured to power one or more electrical components of the substrate processing tool.
Alternative interpretation:
Regarding claim 30, Solovitz discloses (Figs. 1-3) a cooling system for a power circuit of a substrate processing tool, the cooling system comprising: a microchannel assembly comprising an input manifold (12, 16, 30), an output manifold (14, 18, 32), and a microchannel member (8, 26, 56, 66, 76) comprising a plurality of microchannels (26, 56) extending from the input manifold to the output manifold and configured to pass a coolant from the input manifold to the output manifold; and a plurality of printed circuit board layers comprising a first printed circuit board layer (64) and a second printed circuit board layer (74), wherein the first printed circuit board layer is disposed on and contacts a first side of the microchannel member, wherein the second printed circuit board layer is disposed on and contacts a second side of the microchannel member, and wherein the plurality of printed circuit board layers comprise the power circuit (62, 68, 80) including a plurality of electrical components (80) configured to power one or more electrical components of the substrate processing tool.
Regarding claims 17 and 29, as best understood, Solovitz discloses (Figs. 1-3) a cooling system for a power circuit of a substrate processing tool, the cooling system comprising: a microchannel assembly comprising an input manifold (12, 16, 30), an output manifold (14, 18, 32), and a microchannel member (8, 26, 56, 66, 76) comprising a plurality of microchannels extending from the input manifold to the output manifold and configured to pass a coolant from the input manifold to the output manifold; and a plurality of printed circuit board layers comprising a first printed circuit board layer (62, 64) and a second printed circuit board layer (72, 74), wherein the first printed circuit board layer is disposed on a first side of the microchannel member, wherein the second printed circuit board layer is disposed on a second side of the microchannel member, and wherein the plurality of printed circuit board layers comprise the power circuit including a plurality of electrical components (80, 82) configured to power one or more electrical components of the substrate processing tool, wherein the microchannel assembly includes only a single microchannel layer (8, 66, 76) cooling a first printed circuit board (62, 64, 68) and a second printed circuit board (72, 74, 58), the first printed circuit board comprising the first printed circuit board layer (62, 64), and the second printed circuit board comprising the first [sic] (second ?) printed circuit board layer (72, 74).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding the limitations: “for a power circuit of a substrate processing tool” and “configured to power one or more electrical components of the substrate processing tool”, these limitations are directed to the intended use of the device, and inasmuch as it imparts any structure, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the device of Solovitz is capable of acting in such a manner. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as in the instant case, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In view of the above, these intended use limitations have not been given patentable weight. Also, it has also been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” (“configured to”) performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Further, the Applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In the instant case the claimed structure and the one taught by Solovitz are identical. The limitation the “substrate processing tool” is not within the scope of the claims, as it recited either in the preamble, or in the body of the claim following the “configured to” clause.
Alternatively, since the substrate processing tools have been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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 system of Solovitz for cooling the power circuit of the substrate processing tool, in order to predictably provide efficient cooling therefor, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Solovitz discloses that the at least one component carrying layer comprises: a first component carrying layer (62) disposed on a first side of the microchannel layer; and a second component carrying layer (72) disposed on a second side of the microchannel layer opposite the first side (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Solovitz discloses a first conductive layer (68) comprising a first pattern of conductive traces (inherently present to interconnect power devices (80)) and disposed between the microchannel layer and the first component carrying layer (Fig. 3); and a second conductive layer (58) comprising a second pattern of conductive traces (inherently present to interconnect power devices (82)) and disposed between the microchannel layer and the second component carrying layer (Fig. 3).
Alternatively, since providing patterns of conductive trances was a notoriously known and widely used approach in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to effectively electrically interconnect electronic components on surfaces of a carrying substrates, 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 provided them on the conductive layers in Solovitz, in order to predictably provide efficient electrical interconnections od the power components, since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Solovitz discloses that the first printed circuit board layer (62, 64) comprises a first component carrying layer (62) and a first conductive layer (68); and the second printed circuit board layer (72, 74, 58) (comprises) a second component carrying layer (72) and a second conductive layer (58), (Fig. 3, par. [0035]).
Regarding claims 20-22, Solovitz discloses that the microchannel member (8, 26, 56, 66, 76) comprises: a plurality of flanges (12, 14, 16, 18) configured to connect to the input manifold and the output manifold (30, 32); and an integrally formed center member (20, 50) extending between the plurality of flanges and comprising the plurality of microchannels (26, 56), (Figs. 1-3), wherein the plurality of flanges extend perpendicular relative to the center member (Fig. 1); and the plurality of flanges and the center member have an 'H'-shaped cross-section (Fig. 1).
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 selected any desired optimal shape for the plurality of flanges and the center member in Solovitz, including having the 'H'-shaped cross-section as claimed, in order to achieve the most efficient cooling and space utilization, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since 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).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Solovitz discloses that the input manifold (30), the output manifold (32) and the microchannel member/layer (8, 26, 56, 66, 76) are integrally formed as a single component/unitary structure (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 26 and 27, Solovitz discloses that the plurality of microchannels (26, 56) are linear-shaped (Figs. 1, 3). Regarding claims 14 and 27, Solovitz does not explicitly teach that the plurality of microchannels have a sinusoidal shape.
Regarding claims 14 and 27, and alternatively, regarding claims 13 and 26, 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 desired optimal shape for the plurality of microchannels in Solovitz, including as claimed, in order to achieve the most efficient cooling and space utilization, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since 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).
Regarding claim 19, Solovitz discloses that first conductive layer (68) comprises a first pattern of conductive traces (inherently present in order to connect power devices (80)); and the second conductive layer (58) comprises a second pattern of conductive traces (inherently present in order to connect power devices (82)).
Alternatively, the Official notice is taken of facts outside of the current record, that two-sided printed circuit board (PCBs) with different conductive trance patterns on opposite sides thereof have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, 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 provided in Solovitz the first conductive layer comprising the first pattern of conductive traces; and the second conductive layer comprising the second pattern of conductive traces, in order to predictably implement the most efficient positioning of the power devices, thus achieving the most economical space utilization and most efficient cooling. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovitz in view of US 7, 272, 006 to Mongia et al. (hereafter “Mongia”).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Solovitz does not disclose a plurality of gaskets / O-rings disposed between the plurality of flanges and the input manifold and the output manifold.
Mongia teaches (Figs. 6 and 8) conventionally of the gaskets / O-rings (612, 802) being positioned between the manifold plate (180) and the ports (304, 31 (Figs. 5 and 3) on the microchannel cold plate (120), respectively. The design would provide benefits of supporting re-workability, i.e., comparatively convenient disassembly, if required, of the manifold from the microchannel cold plate (col. 3, ll. 60-63).
Since inventions of Solovitz and Mongia are from the same field of endeavor (microchannel cooling), the purpose of the gaskets / O-rings taught by Mongia would be recognized in the invention of Solovitz.
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 modified to Solovitz according to the teachings of Mongia by implementing the input and output manifolds that are interconnected with flanges via gaskets / O-rings, in order to predictably achieve good sealing, while supporting re-workability, i.e., comparatively convenient disassembly of the device, if required for maintenance, etc. (Mongia, col. 3, ll. 60-63). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovitz in view of US 7,209,353 to Ammirata and US 5,065,278 to Schultz.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Solovitz does not explicitly discloses: an alternating current box, wherein the microchannel assembly and the printed circuit board are mounted on a same inner sidewall of the alternating current box, wherein the alternating current box is hermetically sealed.
The hermetically sealed boxes (housings, enclosures, casings, etc.) have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Ammirata discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a hermetically sealed (col. 2, ll. 24-25) alternating current (see AC cord (26a)) box (12) to house an electronic device (10), wherein a heat sink (26b), having channels between fins thereof, and a printed circuit board (18) are mounted (via spacers (16a, 18a)) on a same inner sidewall of the alternating current box (12).
Further, Schultz also discloses (Figs. 1-3) a hermetically sealed alternating current (see transformer (18)) box (12) for a power supply (col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 2) to house an electronic device (power supply components (18, 20, 22)), wherein the walls of the box comprise a heatsink fins (50) with channels formed therebetween.
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 provided for the device of Solovitz an alternating current box, wherein the microchannel assembly and the printed circuit board are mounted on a same inner sidewall of the alternating current box, wherein the alternating current box is hermetically sealed, as taught by the combined teachings of Ammirata and Schultz, in order to predictably protect electronic components of the power circuit of Solovitz, while insuring efficient cooling thereof. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Also, appropriate optimal positioning of the microchannel assembly and of the printed circuit board, including to be mounted on a same inner sidewall of the alternating current box, as claimed, would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve the most effective cooling and/or space utilization within the box, 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).
Claims 16 and 28, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovitz in view of US 7,290,587 to Ward and US 2019/0021186 to Poltorak.
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Solovitz implicitly/inherently teaches a pump configured to circulate the coolant through the microchannel assembly (Figs. 1, 3), but does not teach: a controller configured to select operating in a laminar flow mode or a turbulent flow mode and operate the pump accordingly.
Ward discloses (Fig. 1) a liquid cooling system for a die (12) comprising: a controller (col. 1, ll. 4-8) configured to select operating in a laminar flow mode or a turbulent flow mode and operate the pump accordingly (see the Abstract and col. 3, l. 16-col. 4, l. 25). Furter, Poltorak also discloses a concept of producing various cooling capacities due to laminar and turbulent coolant flows via regulating a pump (pars. [0077]-[0079], [0204], [0228], [0265], [0351], etc.)
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 modified to Solovitz according to the combined teachings of Ward and Poltorak, by providing a controller configured to select operating in a laminar flow mode or a turbulent flow mode and operate the pump accordingly, in order to predictably achieve dynamically regulated cooling arrangement with higher energy efficiency, better thermal control, and improved system reliability (Ward, col. 3, l. 16-col. 4, l. 25; Poltorak, pars. [0077]-[0079], [0204], [0228], [0265], [0351], etc.). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are 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:
Regarding claims 7-12, the limitations of claim 7 (“the plurality of microchannels comprises a plurality of sets of microchannels including a first set of microchannels and a second set of microchannels; and distances between two adjacent sets of the plurality of sets of microchannels are greater than distances between microchannels in each of the plurality of sets of microchannels”) in combination with all of the limitations of claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claims 8-12 dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record taken alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because of the teachings of various liquid cooling arrangements for electronic devices. Furter, the US 2023/0284377, US 2021/0356180, US 2019/0021186, US 7888786, US 7460369, US 2008/0087456, US 2007/0215325, US 7272006, US 7139172, US 2006/0108098,
US 7000684, US 6992382, US 6942018, US 6934154, US 2005/0151244, US 6904966, and US 5901037 teach cooling arrangements in which heat dissipation components employ microchannel.
Conclusion
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