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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse Invention I and Species H1 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 8/12/2026 are as follows:
Claims 8-20 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 21-31 are newly added;
Claims 1-7 and 21-31 are pending;
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-7 are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Specification
The amended abstract was received on 8/12/2026 and is accepted.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US2022/0377937A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Chen teaches a heat removal device (100) for enhancing external hose routing, the heat removal device comprising (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44):
a body (110, 112 form the body) comprising: a first wall (top surface of 112), wherein the first wall defines a first fluid aperture (162) and a second fluid aperture (166) (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44);
a second wall (110) opposing the first wall (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44), wherein:
the first wall at least partially defines a first lateral axis (see annotated Figure 2A below) and a second lateral axis (see annotated Figure 2A below) perpendicular to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below; Paragraphs 33-44) and
a thermally active region (at fins 212) positioned between the first wall and the second wall and in flow communication with the first fluid aperture and the second fluid aperture, the thermally active region comprising (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45):
a plurality of thermally conductive fins (212) defining a first fin flow region (region adjacent 120) and a second fin flow region (region adjacent to 122), each configured to channel fluid parallel to the second lateral axis (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fins extend along the second lateral axis between the inlet and outlet apertures); and
a fluid channel (channel between fins 212) distinct from and positioned between the first fin flow region and the second fin flow region, the fluid channel extending parallel to the first lateral axis and configured to receive the fluid from the first fin flow region and channel the fluid to the second fin flow region (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”);
a first fluid riser (120) in flow communication with the first fluid aperture (162), wherein the first fluid riser is positionally fixed, the first fluid riser is oriented to channel fluid into the body in a first direction at a first angle with respect to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below which illustrates the risers are angled with respect to the first lateral axis; Paragraphs 33-44);
a first fluid conduit (hose connected to 120) in flow communication with the first fluid riser (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraph 43-44 teaches external hoses connected to the risers; Paragraphs 33-44);
a second fluid riser (122) in flow communication with the second fluid aperture (166), wherein the second fluid riser is positionally fixed (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44); and
a second fluid conduit (hose connected to 122) in flow communication with the second fluid riser (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraph 43-44 teaches external hoses connected to the risers), wherein the second fluid riser is oriented to channel the fluid from the body in a second direction at a second angle with respect to the first lateral axis (See annotated Figure 2A below which illustrates the risers are angled with respect to the first lateral axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 4. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented to facilitate access to a heat generating device positioned under the body (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; The risers do not interfere with the heat generating device, thus they are oriented to facilitate access to a heat generating device positioned under the body).
Re Claim 5. Chen teaches mechanical mounting hardware (at 134) for coupling the body to a heat generating device, wherein the first fluid riser, the first fluid conduit, the second fluid riser, and the second fluid conduit are oriented to not interfere with access to the mechanical mounting hardware (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; The first fluid riser, the first fluid conduit, the second fluid riser, and the second fluid conduit do not overlap the mounting holes 134, and thus do not interfere with access to the mechanical mounting hardware).
Re Claim 6. Chen teaches the heat removal device has: a length defined along the first lateral axis, wherein the length has a length value; a width defined along the second lateral axis, wherein the width has a width value; and a height defined along an axis orthogonal to the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis, wherein the height has a height value that is less than the length value and the width value (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44; the height is less than the width and length dimensions).
Re Claim 7. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented to receive the respective first fluid conduit and the second fluid conduit from a same side of the heat removal device (Figures 2A-2D; Paragraphs 33-44).
Re Claim 21. Chen teaches the fluid channel is a first fluid channel; the plurality of thermally conductive fins further defines a third fin flow region configured to channel the fluid parallel to the second lateral axis; and the thermally active region further comprises a second fluid channel distinct from and positioned between the second fin flow region and the third fin flow region, the second fluid channel extending parallel to the first lateral axis and configured to receive the fluid from the second fin flow region and channel the fluid to the third fin flow region (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the multiple “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”).
Re Claim 22. Chen teaches the thermally active region further comprises an inlet plenum in flow communication with the first fluid aperture and configured to channel the fluid from the first fluid aperture to the first fin flow region (Figures 2A-2E; Paragraphs 33-45).
Re Claim 23. Chen teaches the thermally active region further comprises an outlet plenum in flow communication with the second fluid aperture and configured to channel the fluid from the third fin flow region to the second fluid aperture (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45).
Re Claim 24. Chen teaches the inlet plenum, the first fin flow region, the first fluid channel, the second fin flow region, the second fluid channel, the third fin flow region, and the outlet plenum define, in sequence, a fluid flow path from the first fluid aperture to the second fluid aperture (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the multiple “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”).
Re Claim 25. Chen teaches the thermally active region further comprises a first flow barrier (adjacent fin) and a second flow barrier (another adjacent fin), each extending from the first fluid channel to the second fluid channel parallel to the second lateral axis, the first flow barrier and the second flow barrier at least partially defining the inlet plenum and the outlet plenum (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The end of the fins will define the plenums).
Re Claim 26. Chen teaches the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel are positioned proximate respective portions of an inner periphery of the body (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45).
Re Claim 27. Chen teaches the plurality of thermally conductive fins further defines a fourth fin flow region configured to channel the fluid parallel to the second lateral axis; the first fluid channel is configured to channel a first portion of the fluid to the second fin flow region and a second portion of the fluid to the fourth fin flow region; and the second fluid channel is configured to receive the first portion of the fluid from the second fin flow region and the second portion of the fluid from the fourth fin flow region (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the multiple “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”).
Re Claim 28. Chen teaches the plurality of thermally conductive fins further defines a fourth fin flow region; and the fourth fin flow region is configured to channel a first portion of the fluid from the inlet plenum to the outlet plenum in parallel with a second portion of the fluid channeled through the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the multiple “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”).
Re Claim 29. Chen teaches the first fluid channel defines a first flow area on a surface of the second wall; the second fluid channel defines a second flow area on the surface of the second wall; and the second flow area is less than the first flow area (Figures 2A-2E. Paragraphs 41-45. The fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the multiple “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2022/0377937A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 2. Chen teaches the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are positioned in opposition with respect to the first lateral axis and coincident with the second lateral axis (Figure 2A illustrates the opposition and alignment with the first and second axis; Paragraphs 33-44). Chen appears to teach an absolute value of the second angle is similar to an absolute value of the first angle (Figure 2A illustrates a similar absolute angle for each) but fails to specifically teach the two angles are equal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the two angles equal in order to simplify manufacturing of the assembly by using the same angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the two angles equal by rotating the two risers to the same angle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimal angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value (i.e. angle) of a result effective variable (fluid flow or hose routing efficiency) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 3. Chen appears to illustrate the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser are oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis (Figure 2A). In the event it is determined that Chen fails to teach absolute symmetry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser be oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis in order to achieve a desired mounting configuration of the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first fluid riser and the second fluid riser be oriented symmetrically with respect to one of the first lateral axis and the second lateral axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2022/0377937A1, as previously cited, hereinafter Chen ‘937) in view of Chen (US2023/0262926A1, herein after Chen ‘926).
Re Claim 30. Chen ‘937 teaches the inlet plenum defines a first flow area on a surface of the second wall; the outlet plenum defines a second flow area on the surface of the second wall (Figures 2A-2E) but fails to specifically teach the second flow area is less than the first flow area.
However, Chen ‘926 teaches a heat removal device comprising the second flow area (right 110 in Figure 3A) is less than the first flow area (left 110 in Figure 3A) (Figures 1-4B; Paragraphs 38-48, 57-59).
Therefore, in view of Chen ‘926's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to eccentrically form the inlet and outlet plenums in order to optimize the cooling dissipation of the device by improving uniformity of overall temperature distribution (Chen ‘926 Paragraphs 57-59). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inlet plenum larger than the outlet plenum, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the plenums, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2022/0377937A1, as previously cited) in view of Hsiung (US2024/0121913A1).
Re Claim 31. Chen teaches the thermally conductive fins in the first fin flow region have a first fin pitch and the thermally conductive fins in the second fin flow region have a second fin pitch (Figure 2E illustrates equal pitches) but fails to specifically teach the second fin pitch is different from the first fin pitch.
However, Hsiung teaches variable fin pitches from a first fin region with a first fin pitch (20a) to a second fin region with a different fin pitch (20b), wherein the two fin regions are separated by a fluid channel (Figure 2; Paragraphs 30-31).
Therefore, in view of Hsiung's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the fin pitch to optimize the fluid pressure drop along the fluid flow channels, as is well known in the art (see Hsiung paragraph 30 last sentence). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the fin pitch, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen fails to teach the new limitation of “a plurality of thermally conductive fins defining a first fin flow region and a second fin flow region, each configured to channel fluid parallel to the second lateral axis; and a fluid channel distinct from and positioned between the first fin flow region and the second fin flow region, the fluid channel extending parallel to the first lateral axis and configured to receive the fluid from the first fin flow region and channel the fluid to the second fin flow region”. Chen teaches a plurality of fins 212 located in a thermally active region. The claimed fin flow regions are abstract delineations and do not require separate fins, nor does the fluid channel require fluid communication between the fins. Thus, the single fluid channel between two fins reads on the “fluid channel” and the fin 212 can be arbitrability delineated into multiple “regions”. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights