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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2022/0316817 Al.
Re claim 1, Lee et al. teach
a cold plate (annotated fig) that has therein a heat-transfer-medium flow space, through which a heat-transfer medium flows, and that releases, to the heat- transfer medium flowing through the heat-transfer-medium flow space, heat absorbed from an object (10, para 39) to be cooled,
the cold plate comprising:
a base plate (annotated fig) provided with, on a surface, a heat absorbing surface that absorbs heat released from the object to be cooled and provided with, on another surface, a heat dissipation surface that releases, to the heat-transfer medium flowing through the heat-transfer-medium flow space, the heat absorbed by the heat absorbing surface (figs 2, 4);
and a cover plate (annotated fig) that covers the heat dissipation surface of the base plate, wherein the heat-transfer-medium flow space is formed between the heat dissipation surface of the base plate and the cover plate, the base plate has
a plurality of heat transfer portions (137 ) that are provided so as to protrude from the heat dissipation surface toward the cover plate and that transfer, to the heat-transfer medium flowing through the heat-transfer-medium flow space, the heat released from the heat dissipation surface,
and a heat transfer joining portion that joins without gaps (portion joining two parts at contact point, para 34 last three lines, fig 1c) at least a portion of tips of the plurality of heat transfer portions to the cover plate is formed between at least the portion of the tips of the plurality of heat transfer portions and a surface of the cover plate facing the heat- transfer-medium flow space ( para 34 last three lines, fig 1c), and
a flow path of the heat-transfer medium in the heat-transfer-medium flow space is set by the heat transfer joining portion ( figs),
and the heat-transfer medium flows into the heat-transfer-medium flow space flows between the heat transfer portions without flowing through the gap between the tips of the plurality of heat transfer portions and the cover plate (figs),
the surface of the cover plate facing the heat-transfer-medium flow space is a flat surface. the heat transfer joining portion linearly extends in a width direction of the heat-transfer- medium flow space (figs),
and the flow rate of the heat-transfer medium on the cover plate side in the heat-transfer- medium flow space decreases by eliminating gaps between the portion of the tips the plurality of heat transfer portions and the flat surface of the cover plate facing the heat-transfer-medium flow space at the heat transfer joining portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
645
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “and the heat-transfer medium flows into the heat-transfer-medium flow space flows between the heat transfer portions without flowing through the gap between the tips of the plurality of heat transfer portions and the cover plate” and “and the flow rate of the heat-transfer medium on the cover plate side in the heat-transfer- medium flow space decreases by eliminating gaps between the portion of the tips the plurality of heat transfer portions and the flat surface of the cover plate facing the heat-transfer-medium flow space at the heat transfer joining portion” been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 2, Lee et al. teach
wherein each of the plurality of heat transfer portions is configured as a fin that extends along a flow direction of the heat-transfer medium flowing through the heat-transfer- medium flow space (figs, see the rejection of claim 1, noting that the heat-transfer medium is capable of flowing in any direction).
Re claim 3, Lee et al. teach
wherein the base plate has a base-side joining portion provided so as to extend in a circumferential direction of an outer periphery of the base plate, the cover plate has a cover-side joining portion provided so as to extend in the circumferential direction of an outer periphery of the cover plate, and a seal joining portion that seals the heat-transfer-medium flow space is formed between the base-side joining portion and the cover-side joining portion (annotated figure above).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2022/0316817 Al and Li US 20100296249 A1.
Additionally and alternatively, Re claim 3, Lee et al. teach
where in the base plate has a base-side joining portion (annotated fig) provided so as to extend in a circumferential direction of an outer periphery of the base plate,
the cover plate has a cover-side joining portion (122) provided so as to extend in the circumferential direction of an outer periphery of the cover plate.
Li teach and a seal joining portion (14) that seals the heat-transfer-medium flow space is formed between the base-side joining portion and the cover-side joining portion to join and top and bottom plate as is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a seal joining portion as taught by Li in the Lee et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for fluid tight connections.
PNG
media_image2.png
609
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. .
Re claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the wherein the base plate and the cover plate are each made of copper. a copper alloy, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, stainless steel, or a stainless-steel for increased heat transfer, since 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. further in view of Kasezawa US 20090065178 A1.
Additionally and alternatively, Kasezawa teach wherein the base plate and the cover plate are each made of copper, a copper alloy, aluminum, an aluminum alloy, stainless steel, or a stainless-steel alloy to make a heat sink out of known materials (para 39, 52, 53, 142, 143, 145, 189, 210, claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include materials as taught by Kasezawa in the Lee et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a lightweight heat exchanger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments page 8 against Lee ‘817 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 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