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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inlet and outlet of the water box (Claim 8) and the filling of the gap outside the cavities (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of the water box 118 and cold plate 120 as described in the specification (par. 0043. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Specifically, the drawings (Fig. 1, 3, 4) depict the top half of the device physically with the heat sink and cold plate and corresponding projections, cavities, and liquid metal thermal interface material, but depict the lower half only schematically, notably the fluid box/water box of the cold plate and pump.
It is unclear from the Figures how the coolant (water) is expected to flow through the water box and how the water box is arranged with the cold plate.
The Figures appear to illustrate a hollow cold plate with hollow fins, where fluid is pumped around an area surrounded by fluid flow, which does not correspond with the claimed or described device.
PNG
media_image1.png
1128
1610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 8 and 11 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 8 recites the limitation "an outlet of the water box". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The method of Claim 9". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is a product claim, and claim 10 is the only other method claim. For the purposes of examination below, Claim 11 has been interpreted as depending from claim 10.
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) 1-3, 5, 7 and 10 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 attached.
As to claim 1, Plikat discloses: An electrical system (Fig. 1-2) for an aircraft, 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 (heat-conducting paste at contact surfaces 12; see par. 21; translation) is interposed between the heat sink and the cold plate, at least between the projections and the cavities.
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 device 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;
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., Galistan) 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 2, 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 3, 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 5, Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
wherein the projections comprise fins and/or pins (see Fig. 1-2; Plikat).
As to claim 7, 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.
As to claim 10, the method of claim 10 is necessitated by the product of claim 1 above.
Plikat in view of Rawlings discloses:
A method of manufacturing the electrical system according to claim 1 (necessitated by the product of claim 1), the method comprising the steps of:
partial filling of the cavities with liquid metal (see par. 21 “A heat-conducting paste can be applied to the contact surfaces 12”; and
inserting the projections into the cavities (at least when screwed together; par. 25, see also 21), so that the projections push the liquid metal upwards into the cavities (contact surfaces 12 at which the paste is applied include top surfaces of the cavities; see Fig. 1; par. 21).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 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 1 above, and further in view of Hamburgen (US 5083373 A, cited in IDS).
As to claim 4, 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 device 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).
As to claim 12, Plikat in view of Rawlings and Hamburgen disclose:
wherein the projections have a height of at least 2 mm (length L of 7.38mm; col. 7, lines 25-26).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 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 1 above, and further in view of Pando (US 20180177072 A1).
As to claim 6, 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 device 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).
As to claim 9, Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
An aircraft comprising an electrical system according to claim 1.
However, Pando discloses:
An aircraft comprising an electrical system which requires heat dissipation from the electronic components (par. 0001, 0013).
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 device of Plikat in view of Rawlings as suggested by Pando, e.g., providing:
An aircraft comprising an electrical system according to claim 1;
in order to provide aircraft electronic components with heat dissipation.
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) 8 and 11 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 claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Dziubinschi (US 20210122263 A1).
As to claim 8, Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
a hydraulic pump;
a forward channel from the hydraulic pump to an inlet of the water box; and
a return channel from an outlet of the water 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 water box 10; and
a return channel from an outlet 54 of the water 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 device 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 water box; and
a return channel from an outlet of the water 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).
As to claim 11 (as best understood), Plikat in view of Rawlings does not disclose:
11. The method of claim 10,
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dariavach (US 20190320556 A1), Hoffmeyer (US 20210318734 A1), and Busch (US 8089767 B2) disclose conventional thermal interface materials and heat dissipation arrangements.
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 2835
Prosecution Insights