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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 4/17/2024, 4/18/2024, 4/22/2025 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because after the final period the text, “(Fig. 1)” appears. This additional text should be deleted.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenney et al. (US 2019/0360766 – hereinafter, “Kenney”).
With respect to claim 1, Kenney teaches (In Figs 5, 7, 14-15) a cooling device for cooling electronic components, comprising: a bottom plate (20), a top plate (22) which is a deep-drawn component having a recess (See Fig 5), wherein the bottom plate (20) and the top plate (22) are disposed in such a way the recess forms a cooling channel (¶ 0079, “fluid flow passage 14”) between the bottom plate (20) and the top plate (22), wherein the cooling channel (14) extends in a longitudinal direction from an inlet opening (16) to an outlet opening (18), wherein a cooling fluid flow of a cooling fluid can flow through the cooling channel (14) in the longitudinal direction (¶ 0079, “a fluid flow passage 14 configured for the flow of a cooling fluid therethrough”), at least one turbulator (12, Fig 7, ¶ 0096, “the heat transfer surface 12 is a turbulizer”) which is disposed within a turbulator portion (15) of the cooling channel (14, ¶ 0120), and at least one blocking element (70) which is disposed, with respect to the longitudinal direction of the cooling channel (14), next to the turbulator (12) in a bypass region (74) of the cooling channel (14) between the turbulator (12), the top plate (20), and the bottom plate (22) for at least partially blocking a bypass flow next to the turbulator (12, Figs 14-15, ¶ 0136-0140).
With respect to claim 7, Kenney further teaches a plurality of turbulators (12, at 15) disposed in succession in the cooling channel (14) in a flow direction (See Fig 14, there is a first turbulator (12) at 15 and a second turbulator (12) at the other 15 downstream of the first 15).
With respect to claim 8, Kenney further teaches a plurality of blocking elements (70) for each turbulator (12, see Fig 14, there are multiple blocking elements 70 for a single turbulator which would reside at 15).
With respect to claim 9, Kenney further teaches that each blocking element (70) extends in a flow direction across the plurality of turbulators (See Fig 14, when there is a turbulator on each 15 in the left row of 15’s, 70 extends in the flow direction across the two turbulators in the row).
With respect to claim 13, Kenney further teaches an electronic arrangement comprising: a cooling device (10) according to claim 1 and at least one electronic component (11) that is to be cooled.
With respect to claim 14, Kenney further teaches that the electronic component (11) being cooled is connected to the bottom plate (20) of the cooling device (10) in a thermally conductive manner (¶ 0089, “The electronic components 11 are fixed or secured to the heat exchanger 10, in accordance with principles known in the art, in heat transfer relationship with the outer surface of the corresponding heat exchanger plate 20, 22.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Tsuyuno et al. (US 12,101,915 – hereinafter, “Tsuyuno”).
With respect to claim 2, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2.
Tsuyuno, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a blocking element (336) which has a cross-sectional geometry configured to a demolding geometry of a top plate (340).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsuyuno with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the blocking element has a cross-sectional geometry configured to a demolding geometry of the top plate, as taught by Tsuyuno, since doing so would, a) allow the top plate and bottom plate of Kenney to be affixed to each other, and b) prevent cooling fluid from flowing in the space between the top plate and the bottom plate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney.
With respect to claim 3, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3.
It has been held that mere changes in shape are obvious1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the blocking element be configured as a cuboid, since doing so would allow the blocking element to be an easy to form shape which can fill a cuboid space within the cooling channel.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Geskes et al. (US 2007/0107890 – hereinafter, “Geskes”).
With respect to claim 4, Kenny teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the blocking element is at least partially formed by a hard solder meniscus of a hard solder joint of the bottom plate and top plate.
Geskes, however, teaches a blocking element to block an edge duct in a heat exchanger and that is at least partially formed by a hard solder meniscus of a hard solder joint (¶ 0071, “Particularly in the case of a soldered heat exchanger, that is to say when the plate 35 is solder-plated, solder meniscuses which reduce or particularly advantageously close the edge duct 37 are formed between the outermost legs 38 of the wavy profile 34 and the bent plate edge 36.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Geskes with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the blocking element is at least partially formed by a hard solder meniscus of a hard solder joint of the bottom plate and top plate, as taught by Geskes since doing so would allow for the bottom plate and the top plate to be mechanically connected while reducing the need for extra blocking element material to block the bypass region (Using part of the solder material as the blocking element reduces the amount of blocking element needed to block the bypass region).
Claims 5, 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Joshi et al. (US 6,341,649 – hereinafter, “Joshi”).
With respect to claim 5, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the blocking element is at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of the turbulator.
Joshi, however, teaches a blocking element is at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of a turbulator (40, see Fig A below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joshi with that of Kenney such that Kenney further has the blocking element at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of the turbulator, as taught by Joshi, since doing so would reduce the amount of material needed for the blocking element since the wall of the turbulator would be acting as part of the blocking element.
PNG
media_image1.png
283
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6.
Joshi, however, teaches wherein a blocking element (53) comprises at least one undercut region (Bottom region of 53), which extends away from a turbulator (40) and which partially undercuts a top plate (5) with respect to a longitudinal direction (See Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joshi with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the blocking element comprises at least one undercut region, which extends away from the turbulator and which partially undercuts the top plate with respect to the longitudinal direction, as taught by Joshi, since doing so would allow at least a partial seal beneath the top plate and the bottom plate.
With respect to claim 15, even though the claims are limited 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 process2.
Since the combination of Kenney, Geskes, and Joshi teach the claimed structure, it is of little patentable weight how the blocking element is at least partially formed.
Claims 10, 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Zimmerman et al. (WO 2020/169421 – hereinafter, “Zimmerman”).
With respect to claims 10, 18-19, Kenney teaches the limitations of claims 7, 8, and 9, respectively, as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the turbulators include increasing turbulence factors in the flow direction.
Zimmerman, however, teaches (In Figs 2-3) turbulators (40, 41, 42) which include increasing turbulence factors in the flow direction (See Figs 2-3, “The cooling structures 40, 41, 42, 43 are designed as turbulence structures. In particular, the cooling structures 40, 41, 42 shown in FIGS. 3a, 3b and 3c have a wave geometry. The different thermal conductivities of the cooling structures 40, 41, 42 is determined by the different wave geometry and wave density achieved. The cooling structures 40, 41, 42 designed as turbulence structures have at least two wave-shaped strip elements 44. The strip elements 44 consist of wave crests 45 and wave troughs 46, which alternate in the direction of flow R. The strip elements 44 have an offset V1, V2, V3 in the flow direction R of the coolant. To increase the possible heat flow, the offset V1, V2, V3 between the strip elements 44 is increasingly smaller, as a result of which the turbulence of the coolant is increased.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zimmerman with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney the turbulators include increasing turbulence factors in the flow direction, as taught by Zimmerman, since doing so would increase the heat transfer from the downstream electronic component (11).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Tonomoto et al. (JP 5145981 – hereinafter, “Tonomoto”).
With respect to claims 11-12, Kenney teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein at least one taper of a flow cross-section of the cooling channel is formed upstream and/or downstream of the turbulator portion, wherein the taper is configured such that a minimum width of the flow cross-section in the taper is less than a width of the turbulator.
Zimmerman, however, teaches (In Fig 4) a cooling device (1) wherein at least one taper of a flow cross-section of a cooling channel is formed upstream and/or downstream of a turbulator portion (Portion where 35 exists), wherein the taper is configured such that a minimum width of the flow cross-section in the taper is less than a width of a turbulator (35, see Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tonomoto with that of Kenney, such that, in Kenney at least one taper of a flow cross-section of the cooling channel is formed upstream and/or downstream of the turbulator portion, wherein the taper is configured such that a minimum width of the flow cross-section in the taper is less than a width of the turbulator, as taught by Tonomoto since doing so would allow the velocity of the cooling fluid to be changed within the cooling device.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney in view of Geskes and further in view of Joshi.
With respect to claim 16, Kenney as modified by Geskes teaches the limitations of claim 4 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the blocking element is at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of the turbulator.
Joshi, however, teaches a blocking element is at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of a turbulator (40, see Fig A above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joshi with that of Kenney as modified by Geskes such that modified Kenney further has the blocking element at least partially formed by an inclined partial portion of the turbulator, as taught by Joshi, since doing so would reduce the amount of material needed for the blocking element since the wall of the turbulator would be acting as part of the blocking element.
With respect to claim 17, even though the claims are limited 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 process2.
Since the combination of Kenney, Geskes, and Joshi teach the claimed structure, it is of little patentable weight how the blocking element is at least partially formed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,350,544 to Tian et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
1 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
2 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).