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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-18, 22-24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2021/0392783 Al in view of Tajima US 5647430 A and Balasubramanian US 20140311725 A1.
Re claim 16, Li et al. teach a heat sink for an electronic component, comprising a microchannel heat exchanger which is free of forward flow and return flow and has a hermetically encapsulated volume (para 60) of a working medium and a plurality of fins (12) which delimit air ducts through the microchannel heat exchanger (fig 2, 8), wherein the fins are at least partially in the form of a heat pipe (para 60) wherein the fins in the form of a heat pipe are formed as media-conducting hollow fins, each having at least one vertical hollow conductor or microchannel in which a working medium of the heat pipe is guided (fig 2, 8, para 60), wherein the hollow fins are formed between an evaporation zone (11) in a lower region of the microchannel heat exchanger and a cavity (para 53-54) in the upper region of the microchannel heat exchanger and open into the microchannel heat exchanger (para 53-54, para 60), the hollow fins fluidically connecting a media volume of the evaporation zone to the cavity (media fluid 20), so that all the heat pipes are fluidically connected to one another via the evaporation zone and the cavity (fig 2, 8, para 60, 70).
Li et al. fail to explicitly teach further fins.
Tajima teach wherein the microchannel heat exchanger has, in addition to the fins formed as heat pipes (fig 5), further fins (top and bottom 43 of each set of fins) which extend parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another and perpendicular (fig 1) to the fins formed as heat pipes in which the further fins are in the form of solid fins made of a thermally conductive material (col 3 lines 39-41), adjacent fins in the form of heat pipes being thermally coupled to one another via a plurality of the further fins (fig 5, col 3 lines 39-40) to add more high conduction connections above the evaporator portion connecting heat pipe fins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include further fins as taught by Tajima in the Li et al. invention in order to advantageously allow to improve the heat exchange efficiency of the refrigerant with the outside air .
Li et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a distance from one another which is less than 10 mm.
Balasubramanian teach wherein the fins in the form of heat pipes extend parallel to one another and are at a distance from one another which is less than 10 mm (noting the heat pipes in the form of fins have a channel width, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Balasubramanian to teach channel width in between fins to modify the channel width of Li et al. , as modified,) to space fins and create channels for airflow as is known in the art (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a distance from one another which is less than 10 mm as taught by Balasubramanian in the Li et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat exchange and airflow (table 1, figs).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the fins in the form of heat pipes extend parallel to one another and are at a distance from one another which is less than 10 mm , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘heat pipe’ is a closed container in which a continuing cycle of evaporation and condensation of a fluid takes place with the heat being given off at the condenser end and which is more effective in transferring heat than a metallic conductor.
Re claim 17, Li et al. teach in which the microchannels of the microchannel heat exchanger are each one of the heat pipes (noting renaming structure does not add structural limitations, noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘heat pipe’ is a closed container in which a continuing cycle of evaporation and condensation of a fluid takes place with the heat being given off at the condenser end and which is more effective in transferring heat than a metallic conductor).
Re claim 18, Li et al. teach in which the evaporation zone is in thermal contact with a mounting side of the heat sink for mounting the heat sink on an electronic component (30) to be cooled (fig 1b demonstrating 30 is attached to 11).
Re claim 22, Li et al. teach in which the fins in the form of heat pipes each have a plurality of vertical and parallel microchannels which are arranged one behind the other in a longitudinal direction of the fins in the form of heat pipes (fig 2).
Re claim 23, Li et al. teach an assembly (noting the heat sink the electronics components is considered an assembly) comprising at least one heat sink as claimed in claim 16 and an electronic component, wherein the heat sink is arranged in thermal contact on the electronic component, wherein the heat pipes have vertical hollow conductors or microchannels which extend vertically and perpendicularly to the electronic component (see the rejection of claim 18 ) at least in sections (see the rejection of claim 16, noting walls are conductors and the microchannels are present ).
Re claim 24, Li et al. teach in which the heat sink is in thermal contact with the electronic component by way of a mounting side of the heat sink which is a heat coupling-in side of an evaporation zone of the heat pipes (fig 2, noting thermal contact with the inside of the evaporation zone).
Re claim 26, Li et al. teach wherein: the microchannel heat exchanger has at least a first major face and a second major face; the first major face having the cavity extending along an upper portion thereof; the evaporation zone being located in a lower portion of the first major face; lower ends of the heat pipe fins being located in the evaporation zone; upper ends of the heat pipe fins being connected together to adjacent heat pipe fins adjacent the cavity so that all of the heat pipe fins are connected together to one another through the evaporation zone and the cavity; and wherein the electronic component is attached to the second major face (annotated fig, figs).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2021/0392783 Al in view of Tajima US 5647430 A and Balasubramanian US 20140311725 A1 in view of CN ‘104 CN 212658104 U.
Re claim 19, Li et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a cavity.
CN ‘104 teach in which the microchannel heat exchanger has a cavity (holes in housing and space in between fins and housing, annotated fig) into which the microchannels open with their second ends arranged opposite the first to arrange a housing around the heat exchangers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a cavity as taught by CN ‘104 in the Li et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for housing protections and fan placement.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 25, Li et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a fan.
CN ‘104 teach which has an air flow generator, preferably a fan (8), by means of which air is transported through the air-conducting channels, such that the air flows around the fins in the form of heat pipes ( in the instant combination) to arrange a housing around the heat exchangers and fan placement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a fan as taught by CN ‘104 in the Li et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increase convection heat exchange.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2021/0392783 Al in view of Tajima US 5647430 A and Balasubramanian US 20140311725 A1 in view of Siracki US 20120014067 A1.
Re claim 27, Li et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a distance from one another.
Siracki teach wherein the wherein the fins in the form of heat pipes extend parallel to one another and are at a distance from one another which is less than 10 mm and more than 2 mm (noting the heat pipes in the form of fins have a channel width, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Balasubramanian to teach channel width in between fins to modify the channel width of Li et al. , as modified,) to space fins and create channels for airflow as is known in the art (para 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a distance from one another as taught by Siracki in the Li et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for optimal heat exchange and airflow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection and claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection and claim objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since examiner gave a reasoning behind the term “substantially” in the last filed office action, that examiner agrees and allegedly that Li fail to teach “parallel” and “perpendicular” . The examiner respectfully disagrees. The top and bottom of each fin group (and it is noted some of the central fins) clearly meet the claim limitations with substantially removed from the claims. Applicant argues since the fins are bent, Tajima fail to teach the “parallel” and “perpendicular” limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though there are bent portions, there are also portions of the fin sets that do meet the claim limitations, and the claims do no require that every single part of the fins, or every single fin is “parallel” and “perpendicular”, and therefore the portions of the top and bottom fins meet the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Tajima teach away from the “parallel” and “perpendicular” limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument would only be proper for the primary reference teaching away from being modified by a secondary reference. Additionally, applicant has not given a citation.
Applicant argues that the bend in the fins result in minimal physical contact and thus there is no thermal coupling. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As applicant has stated, albeit minimal, there is physical contact, and therefore conductive heat transfer and thermal coupling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20260059711 A1, US 20200404805 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights