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. Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Furthermore, Figures 6-16 are objected to because they are presented as photographs. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Furthermore, Figures 6-16 are objected to because the use of solid gray shading reduces legibility and does not adequately contrast with the rest of the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Additionally, the drawings will not reproduce well due to the shading and the character of
the lines. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction
characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(1).
(1) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process
which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter
must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and
uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to
permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and
to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses
may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the
invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of
spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded.
Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections.
See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be
thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
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 18-20, are 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.
Regarding claim 18, the claim introduces the limitation “a housing” twice (ll. 4 and 8). The claim is unclear since it refers first to “a housing enclosing an interior region of the cold plate” and later to “a housing defining an underside surface positioned overtop the distal fin edges”. It is not clear whether both expressions refer to the same or to different housings.
Since dependent claims 19 and 20 inherit the aforementioned problems of claim 18, they have been also rejected along with said claim 18. For examination purposes the Office will interpret that both expressions refer to the same housing.
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 and 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/ 0359528 to Tsai.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses (Figs. 1-7) a heat exchanger (100) configured to convey energy in the form of heat from a heat-generating component (10) to a coolant (par. [0039]), the heat exchanger (100) comprising: a heat spreader plate (110) defining an upper surface and a plurality of fins (120) extending transversely from the upper surface to respective distal fin edges (Figs. 4-6), wherein the plurality of fins (120) define a corresponding plurality of microchannels (122) between adjacent ones of the plurality of fins (120) (Figs. 4-7); a housing (130-140) defining an underside surface positioned overtop the distal fin edges, wherein the underside surface urges against the distal fin edges sufficiently to substantially inhibit a coolant from leaking from one microchannel (122) to an adjacent microchannel (122), (pars. [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai discloses an inlet passage (141, 1313) and an outlet passage (142), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to convey the coolant from the inlet passage to the plurality of microchannels and from the plurality of microchannels to the outlet passage (par. [0049]).
Claims 1-5, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2007-103702 to Takagi Kunihiko (hereafter “Takagi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi discloses (Figs. 1-3 and English translation of record) a heat exchanger (10) configured to convey energy in the form of heat from a heat-generating component (H) (abstract) to a coolant (W) (par. [0017]), the heat exchanger (10) comprising: a heat spreader plate (12a) defining an upper surface and a plurality of fins (13) extending transversely from the upper surface to respective distal fin edges (Figs. 2-3), wherein the plurality of fins (13) define a corresponding plurality of microchannels (11) between adjacent ones of the plurality of fins (13) (pars. [0017]-[0019], Figs. 1-3); a housing (14) defining an underside surface positioned overtop the distal fin edges (Figs. 2-3, wherein the underside surface urges against the distal fin edges sufficiently to substantially inhibit a coolant from leaking from one microchannel (11) to an adjacent microchannel (11) (pars. [0019]-[0023]). Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Takagi discloses (Figs. 1-3 and English translation of record) an electronic device, comprising: a heat-generating electronic component (H); and a cold plate (10) having a heat spreader plate (12a) positioned in thermal contact with the heat-generating component (H) and a housing (14) enclosing an interior region of the cold plate, wherein the heat spreader plate defines an upper surface and a plurality of fins (13) extending transversely from the upper surface to respective distal fin edges (pars. [0017]-[0019], Figs. 1-3), wherein the plurality of fins (13) define a corresponding plurality of microchannels (11) between adjacent ones of the plurality of fins, the cold plate further having a housing (14) defining an underside surface positioned overtop the distal fin edges (Figs. 2-3), wherein the underside surface and the distal fin edges urge together and substantially inhibit a coolant from leaking from one microchannel to an adjacent microchannel (pars. [0019]-[0023]); and wherein the housing (14) and the heat spreader plate (12a) are fused together (par. [0023]).
Examiner’s Note: With regard to the method of making limitation “fused” (though the limitation has been met by Takagi), the limitation does not have patentable weight, since even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 2, Takagi discloses an inlet passage (2) and an outlet passage (3), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to convey the coolant (W) from the inlet passage to the plurality of microchannels (11) and from the plurality of microchannels (11) to the outlet passage (3), (Figs. 1, 4)).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi discloses that the housing (14) and the heat spreader plate (12a) are joined together with a high-temperature process (see “brazing or diffusion bonding” in par. [0023]).
Examiner’s Note: With regard to the method of making limitation “by a high-temperature process” (though the limitation has been met by Takagi), the limitation does not have patentable weight, since even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 4, Takagi discloses that each in the plurality of fins (13) extends obliquely from the upper surface of the heat spreader plate (12a), (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, as best understood, Takagi discloses that the distal fin edges urge in compression between the underside of the housing (14) and the upper surface of the heat spreader plate (12a) sufficiently to deflect the plurality of fins (13) from an unloaded, at-rest orientation (see “each fin 13 deforms so that it tilts in the same direction” in par. [0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 3 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsai.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Tsai discloses (Figs. 1-7) an electronic device, comprising: a heat-generating electronic component (10); and a cold plate having a heat spreader plate (110) positioned in thermal contact with the heat-generating component and a housing (130-140) enclosing an interior region of the cold plate, wherein the heat spreader plate defines an upper surface and a plurality of fins (120) extending transversely from the upper surface to respective distal fin edges (Figs. 4-6), wherein the plurality of fins define a corresponding plurality of microchannels (122) between adjacent ones of the plurality of fins, the cold plate further having a housing (130-140) defining an underside surface positioned overtop the distal fin edges, wherein the underside surface and the distal fin edges urge together and substantially inhibit a coolant from leaking from one microchannel (122) to an adjacent microchannel (122), wherein the housing and the heat spreader plate are [
Examiner’s Note: With regard to the method of making limitation “fused”, even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Accordingly, said method of making limitation “fused” has no limiting effect on the structure of the device as recited in claim 18.
Alternatively, the Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that various fusing methods for joining metal components have been notoriously know and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (e.g., welding, brazing, soldering, diffusion bonding, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have joined said housing and said heat spreader plate of Tsai by welding, brazing, soldering, diffusion bonding, etc., so as to render said housing and said heat spreader plate fused together as claimed, in order to predicably and reliably join them in leak-proof manner, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device. Also, 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).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai discloses that the housing (130-140) and the heat spreader plate (110) are joined together (Figs. 4, 6), but does not specify that they are joined together by a high-temperature process.
Examiner’s Note: With regard to the method of making limitation “by a high-temperature process”, even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Accordingly, said method of making limitation “by a high-temperature process” has no limiting effect on the structure of the device as recited in claim 3.
Alternatively, the Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that various high temperature processes (i.e., fusing processes) for joining metal components have been notoriously know and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (e.g., welding, brazing, soldering, diffusion bonding, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have joined said housing and said heat spreader plate of Tsai by using high temperature processes (e.g., welding, brazing, soldering, diffusion bonding, etc.) as claimed, in order to predicably and reliably join them in leak-proof manner, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device. Also, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai or Takagi, each taken alone.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai or Takagi do not disclose that the underside surface is fused with the distal fin edges. However, Tsai discloses that said underside surface and the distal fin edges are tightly interconnected (pars. [0046]-[0049], Figs. 4-5). Takagi also teaches the same (par. [0023]).
Therefore, since fusing processes of joining metal components have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see discussions pertained to claims 3 and 18 above), it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fused said underside surface and the distal fin edges in Tsai or Takagi, in order to predictably enhance leak resistance between the microchannels, thus enhancing cooling efficiency. Also, 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).
Claims 7-17, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai or Takagi, each taken with US 2022/0071056 to Lin et al. (hereafter “Lin”).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, either Tsai or Takagi discloses all as explained above in relation to claims 1 and 18, but does not disclose that the distal fin edges are laterally flared to at least partially enclose a distal region of each microchannel.
Lin discloses (Figs. 3-4) the distal fin (120) edges (130) that are laterally flared to at least partially enclose a distal region of the microchannels (G) (par. [0021]) for the benefits of enhancing rigidity of the device and preventing the welding material from entering into the microchannels (G) during the welding process (par. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to either Tsai or Takagi according to the teachings of Lin by providing the distal fin edges that are laterally flared to at least partially enclose distal regions of each microchannel as claimed, for the benefits of enhancing rigidity of the device and preventing the welding material from entering into the microchannels during the welding process (see Lin, par. [0025]). Also, 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).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Lin discloses that the underside surface (of the housing (200, 300) is fused (welded) with the flared distal fin edges (130) (see “welded”, “welding” in par. [0025]).
Further, regarding claim 9, Lin teaches welding instead of the claimed “brazed”. However, the Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that brazing process has been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a convenient and reliable method for joining components together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used brazing instead of welding in order to predicably and reliably join the underside of the housing and the flared distal fin edges in the Tsai-Lin or Takagi-Lin combinations. Also, 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).
Regarding claim 11, Takagi discloses an inlet passage (2) and an outlet passage (3), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to convey the coolant (W) from the inlet passage to the plurality of microchannels (11) and from the plurality of microchannels (11) to the outlet passage (3), (Figs. 1, 4)).
Further, regarding claim 11, Tsai also discloses an inlet passage (141, 1313) and an outlet passage (142), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to convey the coolant from the inlet passage to the plurality of microchannels and from the plurality of microchannels to the outlet passage (par. [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Takagi discloses that the housing (14) and the heat spreader plate (12a) are joined together with a high-temperature process (see “brazing or diffusion bonding” in par. [0023]).
Further, Lin also discloses (Figs. 3-4) that the housing (200, 300) and the heat spreader plate (100) are joined together with a high-temperature process (see “welded”, “welding” in par. [0025]).
Examiner’s Note: With regard to the method of making limitation “by a high-temperature process” (though the limitation has been met by Takagi and Lin), the limitation does not have patentable weight, since even though the claim is limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 13, Takagi discloses that each in the plurality of fins (13) extends obliquely from the upper surface of the heat spreader plate (12a), (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Takagi as modified by Lin discloses that the underside surface (of the housing (14)) urges against the flared fin edges ((130) in Lin) sufficiently to deflect the plurality of fins (13) from an unloaded, at-rest orientation (see “each fin 13 deforms so that it tilts in the same direction” in par. [0023]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Takagi discloses that the underside surface (of the housing (14)) is fused/brazed with the flared distal fin edges (par. [0023]).
Further, Lin also discloses (Figs. 3-4) that the underside surface (of the housing (200, 300)) is fused with the flared distal fin edges (130) (see “welded”, “welding” in par. [0025]).
Also, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fused said underside surface and the distal fin edges in the Tsai-Lin or Takagi-Lin combinations, in order to predictably enhance leak resistance between the microchannels, thus enhancing cooling efficiency. Also, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses that the microchannels are substantially free of any flux or solder or other brazing material (par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Lin discloses (Figs. 3-4) that the distal fin (120) edges (130) are laterally flared and wherein the underside of the housing (200, 300) and the flared distal fin edges (130) are welded together, wherein the microchannels (G) are substantially free of any brazing material (par. 0025]).
Lin teaches welding instead of the claimed “brazed”. However, the Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that brazing process has been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a convenient and reliable method of joining components together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used brazing instead of welding in order to predicably and reliably join the underside of the housing and the flared distal fin edges in the Tsai-Lin or Takagi-Lin combinations. Also, 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, because of the teachings of various liquid-cooled cold plates and heat spreaders. Furter, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the US 9, 453, 691 which could have been also used for statutory rejections of the at least independent claims (see Figs. 1-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights