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 10-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “A method of manufacturing an electrical system for an aircraft, the aircraft comprising:” followed by limitations directed to the method/electrical system, and no features of the product of an aircraft, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim limitations are directed to a method (A method of manufacturing an electrical system for an aircraft,) or a product (the aircraft), as well as whether the aircraft is positively required by the claim.
For the purposes of examination below, Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as reading:
“A method of manufacturing an electrical system for an aircraft, the electrical system comprising:”.
Claim 18 recites “an inlet of the heat transfer fluid box” and “an outlet of a water box", which renders the claim indefinite, because the water box and the heat transfer fluid box (previously established in claim 10), appear to use different terms for the same component (e.g., the heat transfer fluid box 118 is a water box 118). It is unclear whether the claim requires 2 distinct components or a single component.
For the purposes of examination below, Examiner has interpreted claim 18 as reading:
“a return channel from an outlet of the heat transfer fluid box to the hydraulic pump.”
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plikat (WO 0215268 A2) in view of Rawlings (US 20190393118 A1). Foreign reference and translation previously attached.
As to claim 10 (as best understood), Plikat discloses: A method of manufacturing an electrical system (Fig. 1-2) for an aircraft, the electrical system comprising:
an electrical power module 1-6 comprising a heat sink 7 provided with thermal dissipation projections 9; and
a cold plate 11 of a heat transfer fluid box 11, 17 (par. 24, 25; translation, having cavities (between projections 10; filled by projections 9) complementary to the projections for receiving the latter;
wherein thermal interface material (“A heat-conducting paste can be applied to the contact surfaces 12”; see par. 10, 21; translation) is interposed between the heat sink and the cold plate, at least between the projections and the cavities (at the contact surfaces 12, between top and bottom surfaces 12 of the projections and cavities);
the method comprising the steps of:
partial filling of the cavities with thermal interface material (at least partial filling - application of heat-conducting paste to the contact surfaces 12; par. 10, 21); and
inserting the projections into the cavities (during the assembly/screwing together of the device by screws 18) so that the projections push the thermal interface material upwards into the cavities (during assembly/screwing together of the device and/or by thermal expansion of projections 9 during heating/operation of the device; see par. 16, 17, 26).
Regarding the preamble, “for an aircraft”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81.
In the instant case, the limitation “for an aircraft” merely recite the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Accordingly, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Further, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, the device of Plikat is capable of being used in any electronics circuit, including for an aircraft.
Plikat does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal interface material is liquid metal.
However, Rawlings discloses:
wherein liquid metal 311 (Galinstan; par. 0037; Fig. 3D-3F) is interposed between the heat sink 307 and the die 303, at least between the projections and the cavities;
in order to provide a liquid metal thermal interface material and transfer heat from the die 303 to the heat spreader 307 (see par. 0032, 0036-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Plikat as suggested by Rawlings, e.g., providing wherein the thermal interface material is liquid metal:
wherein liquid metal is interposed between the heat sink and the cold plate, at least between the projections and the cavities;
the method comprising the steps of:
partial filing of the cavities with liquid metal; and
inserting the projections into the cavities, so that the projections push the liquid metal upwards into the cavities;
in order to provide a liquid metal thermal interface material (as in Rawlings) and transfer heat from the heat sink to the cold plate (similarly as in Plikat).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (e.g., Galinstan) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, 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).
As to claim 12, Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
wherein the liquid metal has a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/m∙K (Galinstan is 73 W/m∙K; see Applicant’s par. 0049 in the printed publication US 20240422953 A1 of the present application).
As to claim 13, Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
wherein the liquid metal remains liquid between −20° C and 150° C (Galinstan is liquid at -19° C and gas at 1300° C; so will remain liquid at –19° C to 150° C; see Applicant’s par. 0049 in the printed publication US 20240422953 A1 of the present application).
As to claim 15, Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
wherein the projections comprise fins and/or pins (see Fig. 1-2; Plikat).
As to claim 17, Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
wherein the electrical power module comprises a substrate 4 that includes an insulating plate (direct copper bond ceramic; par. 20; Plikat) and, on a lower face of the insulating plate (at least indirectly), a lower layer 8 (base plate) forming at least in part the heat sink 7.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plikat (WO 0215268 A2) in view of Rawlings (US 20190393118 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hamburgen (US 5083373 A, cited in IDS).
As to claim 14, Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
wherein the projections have a height of at least 1 mm.
However, Hamburgen discloses:
wherein the projections have a height of at least 1 mm (length L of 7.38mm; col. 7, lines 25-26);
in order to provide a desired thermal resistivity (col. 7, lines 8-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Plikat in view of Rawlings as suggested by Hamburgen, e.g., providing:
wherein the projections have a height of at least 1 mm;
in order to provide a desired thermal resistivity.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the relative fin height for effecting the desired results of thermal resistivity, heat dissipation) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, 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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plikat (WO 0215268 A2) in view of Rawlings (US 20190393118 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Pando (US 20180177072 A1).
As to claim 16, Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
wherein the projections are made by additive manufacturing.
However, Pando discloses:
wherein the projections are made by additive manufacturing (par. 0018);
in order to form the fins by 3D printing (par. 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Plikat in view of Rawlings as suggested by Pando, e.g., providing:
wherein the projections are made by additive manufacturing;
in order to form the fins by 3D printing.
Additionally, 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(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plikat (WO 0215268 A2) in view of Rawlings (US 20190393118 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dziubinschi (US 20210122263 A1).
As to claim 11, Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
wherein the step of inserting the projections into the cavities fills a gap between the heat sink and the cold plate outside the cavities and the projections with the liquid metal.
However, Dziubinschi discloses:
wherein the step of inserting the projections into the cavities (sandwiching the thermal interface material between them; par. 0030) fills a gap between the heat sink 5 (Fig. 1) and the cold plate 10 outside the cavities and the projections with the thermal interface material 9 (e.g., fills horizontal gaps at left side and right side outside the projections and cavities);
in order to maximize heat transfer (par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Plikat in view of Rawlings as suggested by Dziubinschi, e.g., providing:
wherein the step of inserting the projections into the cavities fills a gap between the heat sink and the cold plate outside the cavities and the projections with the liquid metal;
in order to maximize heat transfer.
Additionally, 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).
As to claim 18 (as best understood), Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
a hydraulic pump;
a forward channel from the hydraulic pump to an inlet of the heat transfer fluid box; and
a return channel from an outlet of the heat transfer fluid box to the hydraulic pump.
However, Dziubinschi discloses:
a hydraulic pump (par. 0045);
a forward channel from the hydraulic pump to an inlet 53 (Fig. 1) of the heat transfer fluid box 10; and
a return channel from an outlet 54 of the heat transfer fluid box to the hydraulic pump;
in order to provide a coolant circuit and transfer heat to additional heat exchangers (par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Plikat in view of Rawlings as suggested by Dziubinschi, e.g., providing:
a hydraulic pump;
a forward channel from the hydraulic pump to an inlet of the heat transfer fluid box; and
a return channel from an outlet of the heat transfer fluid box to the hydraulic pump;
in order to provide a coolant circuit and transfer heat to additional heat exchangers.
Additionally, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested that the claims require a sequential order of the method steps e.g., requiring first partially filling and then inserting projections into cavities (Remarks, p. 8-9) and that these limitations are not met because one of ordinary skill in the art would have injected the material as in the secondary reference of Rawlings.
In response, Examiner notes that there is no such language in the claims – e.g., “first” or “and then” to require sequential method steps.
Further, Examiner notes that the primary reference Plikat already explicitly discloses “A heat-conducting paste can be applied to the contact surfaces 12” (par. 21), which indicates that the paste would be applied to the respective contact surfaces 12 before assembly of the components, and not injected afterwards.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
