DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed July 17, 2024, claims foreign priority to Taiwan Application No. 112133057, filed August 31, 2023, and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The effective filing date of the claimed invention is August 31, 2023. All citations to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in this Office action are to the AIA statutory framework.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the limiting body directly abuts against the body.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the body” in the claim. The claim earlier recites “a limiting body,” “a heat dissipation body,” “an object,” and “a heating element,” but does not recite “a body,” such that it is unclear which structure “the body” refers to. For purposes of examination, “the body” has been interpreted as “the object.” Claims 2–17 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same indefinite limitation, and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 14 requires that the elastic element or cushioning element “presses down the heat dissipation body to contact the heating element,” whereas claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, requires that the heat dissipation body “have a distance from a heating element.” A heat dissipation body cannot simultaneously be spaced a distance from, and be in contact with, the heating element, and the metes and bounds of claim 14 therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 17 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason. Claim 17 requires that the limiting body “make the heat dissipation body contact the heating element,” which is irreconcilable with the distance required by claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 16 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 16, although denominated “a limiting method,” recites both structural limitations of the apparatus (“the limiting body is combined with the heat dissipation body with a downward pressure elastic force or with a cushioning element”; “the heat dissipation body has a distance from the heating element of the object”) and an affirmative method step performed on that apparatus (“and then the limiting body is rotated or moved, so that the heat dissipation body is elastically pressed downward, pressed downward or contacts the heating element”). Because the claim recites both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs upon making the structure or upon performing the recited operation, rendering the claim indefinite. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 14, 16, and 17 set forth below are made as best understood in light of the indefiniteness noted above.8.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US 2002/0012231 A1) in view of Shia (US 2003/0030982 A1).Re claim 1, Bhatia discloses:
A limiting structure (fig. 1), comprising: at least one limiting body (28 in fig. 1) and at least one heat dissipation body (18 in fig. 1), the limiting body is combined with the heat dissipation body (fig. 1); and at least one fastening body (27 in fig. 1), disposed at the limiting structure (fig. 1), or an elastic element or cushioning element is disposed between the fastening body and the limiting structure (“coil spacer springs” in fig. 1; para. 0015), the fastening body is used to combine with an object (14 in fig. 1), so that the limiting structure is limited to the object (fig. 1), the limiting body directly abuts against the body to make the heat dissipation body (18 in fig. 1) have a distance (20 in fig. 1) from a heating element (10 in fig. 1) of the object (14 in fig. 1). Bhatia does not disclose the limiting body directly abuts against the body [the object]. Shia discloses the limiting body (102 in figs. 1A-1B) directly abuts against the body (108 in figs. 1A-1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seat the limiting body of Bhatia against the object (the printed circuit board) as taught by Shia, as a known alternative retention arrangement that locates and supports the heat dissipation body from the board while maintaining Bhatia’s controlled distance from the heating element, with a reasonable expectation of success.Re claim 2, Bhatia discloses the limiting structure of claim 1, wherein the limiting body is provided with a body part, the body part is combined with the heat dissipation body, or the body part is integrally formed with the heat dissipation body, or the limiting body is combined with the heat dissipation body (fig. 1).Re claim 15: Bhatia discloses wherein the fastening body (27 in fig. 1) is provided with a blocking part (“locking clips” in para. 0015), the blocking part restricts a depth, height or stroke of the fastening body fastening into the object, or the blocking part gives the elastic element or the cushioning element storage, setting, reserved height, stroke, pressure height or pressure stroke (para. 0015).Re claim 17: Shia discloses a limiting method of a limiting structure, wherein the limiting body (102 in figs. 1A-1B) is used to make the heat dissipation body (114 in figs. 1A-1B) contact the heating element (112 in figs. 1A-1B) with uniform force, pressure, downward pressure (figs. 1A-1B) or elastic downward pressure to be used for heat dissipation.
Claims 3-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US 2002/0012231 A1) in view of Shia (US 2003/0030982 A1) and Rife (US 6,075,699).Re claim 3: Bhatia and Shia do not disclose the limiting body, or a body part of the limiting body or the heat dissipation body is provided with a stopping part, the stopping part stops the limiting body at a blocking position of the object. Rife discloses the limiting body (12 in fig. 1), or a body part of the limiting body (30 in fig. 1) or the heat dissipation body is provided with a stopping part (50 in figs. 3, 5), the stopping part stops the limiting body at a blocking position of the object (36 in figs. 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the limiting body of the Bhatia/Shia combination with a stopping part that stops it at a blocking position of the object, as taught by Rife, to reliably retain and locate the limiting structure on the object (the circuit board), with a reasonable expectation of success.Re claim 4:
Bhatia and Shia do not disclose the limiting body, or a body part of the limiting body or the heat dissipation body is provided with a restriction part, the restriction part restricts the limiting body at a resisting position or a non-resisting position. Rife discloses the limiting body (12 in fig. 1), or a body part of the limiting body (30 in fig. 1) or the heat dissipation body is provided with a restriction part (32 in figs. 3, 5), the restriction part restricts the limiting body at a resisting position or a non-resisting position (figs. 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the limiting body of the Bhatia/Shia combination with a restriction part that restricts it at a resisting position or a non-resisting position, as taught by Rife, to reliably retain and position the limiting structure relative to the object, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Re claim 5: Bhatia and Shia do not disclose the restriction part is a fastening body, a hole body, a groove body, a convex body, a concave body or a structure that can restrict a position. Rife discloses the restriction part is a fastening body, a hole body, a groove body, a convex body (48 in figs. 3, 5), a concave body or a structure that can restrict a position.
Re claim 6: Bhatia discloses the number of the limiting body is two or more (28 in fig. 2), or at least one connecting part is respectively disposed between the limiting bodies, or the limiting bodies are linked with the connecting part.
Re claim 7: Shia discloses the limiting bodies therebetween, the limiting bodies and the connecting part therebetween, the limiting bodies and the heat dissipation body therebetween, or the limiting bodies and a body part therebetween are bolted, assembled (116 in figs. 1A-1B) or axially connected.Re claim 8: Shia discloses the limiting body is blocked against the object, the limiting body is a single-piece structure (102 in figs. 1A-1B), or the limiting body is a multi-piece connecting structure.Re claim 9: Bhatia discloses the heating element is a chip, an IC, a memory, a circuit board or a current device, or the object is a circuit board, or a server, a data center, a storage, a computer or a current device, or the heat dissipation body is a heat sink (18 in fig. 1), a liquid cooling device, a radiator or a metal body.Re claim 13:
Bhatia discloses wherein the limiting body is a column, a metal body, a plastic body, a rod body, a bolted body or a buckle body, or the fastening body is a threaded body, an elastic fastening body, a rod body, an outer fastening body, an inner fastening body, a fastening body with a limiting height, or the elastic element is a spring, a coil spring (“coil spacer springs” in fig. 1; para. 0015), an elastic column or an element with cushioning characteristics.
Claims 10, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US 2002/0012231 A1) in view of Shia (US 2003/0030982 A1) and Rodriguez (US 5,870,287).Re claim 10: Bhatia and Shia do not disclose wherein an elastic body is disposed between the limiting body and the heat dissipation body, the elastic body makes the limiting body elastically located in a resisting position or a non-resisting position.
Rodriguez discloses wherein an elastic body (biasing member 10 in figs. 5, 6) is disposed between the limiting body (deflection member 11 in figs. 5, 6) and the heat dissipation body (heat sink 3 in figs. 5, 6), the elastic body makes the limiting body elastically located in a resisting position (engaged, fig. 6) or a non-resisting position (nonengagement, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the limiting structure of Bhatia and Shia with an elastic body disposed between the limiting body and the heat dissipation body that elastically locates the limiting body in a resisting or non-resisting position, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to permit low-insertion-force, tool-free engagement and removal of the heat dissipation body while maintaining a consistent compressive load, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Re claim 14: Bhatia discloses wherein the fastening body (27 in fig. 1) presses down the elastic element (“coil spacer springs” in fig. 1; para. 0015) or the cushioning element, so that the elastic element or the cushioning element presses down the heat dissipation body (18 in fig. 1). Bhatia and Shia do not disclose so that the elastic element or the cushioning element presses down the heat dissipation body to contact the heating element to dissipate heat. Rodriguez discloses so that the elastic element (biasing member 10) presses down the heat dissipation body (heat sink 3) to contact the heating element to dissipate heat (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the elastic element of Bhatia and Shia to press the heat dissipation body into contact with the heating element to dissipate heat, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to establish a direct, compressively-loaded thermal interface between the heat dissipation body and the heating element for improved heat transfer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Re claim 16: Bhatia discloses a limiting method of a limiting structure, wherein the limiting body (28 in fig. 1) is combined with the heat dissipation body (18 in fig. 1) with a downward pressure elastic force (“coil spacer springs” in fig. 1; para. 0015), and combined to the object (14 in fig. 1) by the fastening body (27 in fig. 1), and the heat dissipation body (18 in fig. 1) has a distance (20 in fig. 1) from the heating element (10 in fig. 1) of the object. Shia discloses so that the limiting body (102 in figs. 1A-1B) is limited to the object (108 in figs. 1A-1B). Bhatia and Shia do not disclose and then the limiting body is rotated or moved, so that the heat dissipation body is elastically pressed downward, pressed downward or contacts the heating element for heat dissipation.
Rodriguez discloses and then the limiting body (deflection member 11 in figs. 5, 6) is rotated or moved (figs. 5, 6), so that the heat dissipation body (heat sink 3 in figs. 5, 6) is elastically pressed downward, pressed downward or contacts the heating element for heat dissipation (fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the limiting structure of Bhatia and Shia by moving the limiting body to bring the heat dissipation body from a spaced position into pressing contact with the heating element, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to selectively engage the heat dissipation body against the heating element with a controlled compressive load while permitting low-insertion-force, tool-free engagement and release, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 1, and are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the safety device recited in claims 11 and 12, namely a safety device that actuates with the movement or rotation of the limiting body and that permits or stops a tool, non-tool or manual operation of the fastening body according to whether the limiting body is positioned so that the heat dissipation body has a distance from, or a restricted force on, the heating element. Bhatia, Shia, Rife, and Rodriguez disclose heat-sink retention hardware, but none discloses a position-dependent interlock that gates operation of the fastening body upon the position of the limiting body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6,101,096 – heat sink clip for an electronic assembly.
US 5,719,745 – extended surface cooling for chip stack apparatus
US 6,101,093 – wrap around clip for an electronic cartridge
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGFU J FENG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 900am-530pm 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 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.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835 June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights