Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and species A-I in the reply filed on 4/20/26 is acknowledged. Applicant indicated that due to amendment no claims were withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (paragraphs 0036-0065) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Incorporation by Reference
It is noted that many of the documents cited in paragraphs 0036-0065 are NOT incorporated by reference (approximately 7 of them are, the rest include no such statement). If applicant meant to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to these it is ineffective because as it does not include the required statement for them.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim includes the term “non-harmonic frequecies” this appears to be typographical error and should properly be “non-harmonic frequencies”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification includes no teaching of “branched elements are arranged having different non-harmonic resonant frequencies”. The specification only references non-harmonic in para. 0070 (note not incorporated by refence), and this does not equate this to the claimed branching elements as claimed, thus this is new matter.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 18 specifically contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification includes no teaching of “the plurality of heat exchange elements, are spread across an acoustic spectrum in a branch pattern dependent manner”. The specification never mentions acoustic spectrum, thus this is new matter.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for dependence from claim 18
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 1-20 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.
The term “chaotically distributed” in claim 1, 12, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “chaotically distributed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art would not know what is required or exactly meant by “chaotically distributed” as it is unclear if it means the vortices are chaotic (and if so, how so and how this differs from turbulent), the distribution is chaotic (such as no pattern to the spacing placement, or in some form random direction), it is unclear if any pattern at all in the placement ,size, shape, or any type of form would or would not read on the limitation. For purposes of examination any formation of vortices will be considered to be read on the limitation.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kluge (U.S. PGPub 2009/0086436) in view of Zhang (U.S. PGPub 2005/0006063).
Regarding claim 1, Kluge teaches a heat sink (element 1) comprising: a heat transfer surface (side of element 1 in contact with element 10 in fig. 2) configured to receive heat from a heat source (element 6a); a metallic body (body of element 1, per para. 0116 “meta-containing”), configured to conduct heat away from the heat transfer surface (per fig. 2 heat transferred to elements 7); a plurality of branched elements (elements 7, fig. 5d) having external surfaces having a surface boundary layer with a flowing surrounding medium (per para. 0107) and configured to dissipate conducted heat into the flowing surrounding medium (per para. 0043).
Kluge does not expressly teach the branched elements configured to induce chaotically distributed vortices in the flowing surrounding medium over the external surfaces, to disrupt the surface boundary layer. Zhang teaches adding vortex inducing elements (elements 10) to branching elements (para. 0007). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Kluge to induce the vortex inducing elements of Zhang, the motivation would be to improve the heat transfer (para. 0007).
Regarding claim 2, Kluge teaches the heat transfer surface is a planar surface configured to receive heat from a packaged integrated circuit (per fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements are arranged according to an iterated function system comprising at least three iterations (per fig. 5d the fin taught has the claimed structure as there are three or more sizes combined).
Regarding claim 7, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements each comprise a plurality of asymmetric branches (per fig. 5d).
Regarding claim 8, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements comprise plate structures (per fig. 5d, the flat sections may be considered “plate structures”).
Regarding claim 9, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements comprise parallel plate structures (as shown in fig. 1-4 elements 7 run parallel to each other thus the plate structure (flat sections) would be parallel as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements branch in two dimensions (per fig. 5d – as they go different x-y directions it reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements branch in three dimensions per fig. 5d- they are shown in x-y, but all real structures inherently have a Z direction, it is noted the limitation only requires existing in this not differing in those directions).
Regarding claim 12, Kluge teaches a heatsink (element 1) for dissipating heat comprising: a heat conductive body (body of element 1) comprising a heat transfer surface (side of element 1 in contact with element 10 in fig. 2); and a plurality of branched elements (elements 7) having external surfaces having a surface boundary layer with a flowing surrounding medium (per para. 0107).
Kluge does not expressly teach configured to induce chaotically distributed vortices in the flowing surrounding medium over the external surfaces to disrupt the surface boundary layer. Zhang teaches adding vortex inducing elements (elements 10) to branching elements (para. 0007). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Kluge to induce the vortex inducing elements of Zhang, the motivation would be to improve the heat transfer (para. 0007).
Regarding claim 13, Kluge teaches the heat transfer surface is a planar surface configured to receive heat from a packaged integrated circuit (per fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements are arranged according to an iterated function system comprising at least three iterations (per fig. 5d the fin taught has the claimed structure as there are three or more sizes combined). Kluge does not teach a three dimensionally printed. With regards to the limitation of being three dimensionally printed, this is a product-by-process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Kluge teaches the plurality of branched elements branch in three dimensions per fig. 5d- they are shown in x-y, but all real structures inherently have a Z direction, it is noted the limitation only requires existing in this not differing in those directions).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kluge (U.S. PGPub 2009/0086436) in view of Zhang (U.S. PGPub 2005/0006063), in further view of Azar (U.S. Patent 6,234,239).
Regarding claim 3, Kluge does not expressly teach a fan configured to induce a flow of the flowing surrounding medium comprising air. Azar teaches a fan configured to induce a flow of the flowing surrounding medium comprising air (col. 11, ln 41-46). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Kluge to include the fan of Azar, the motivation would be to force convection (col. 11, ln 41-46).
Regarding claim 14, Kluge does not expressly teach a fan configured to induce a flow of the flowing surrounding medium. Azar teaches a fan configured to induce a flow of the flowing surrounding medium (col. 11, ln 41-46). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Kluge to include the fan of Azar, the motivation would be to force convection (col. 11, ln 41-46).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kluge (U.S. PGPub 2009/0086436) in view of Zhang (U.S. PGPub 2005/0006063), in further view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent 7,130,191).
Regarding claim 4, Kluge does not teach the metallic body comprises a three dimensionally printed metal having a heat transfer coefficient of at least 166 W/m-K. Lin teaches making metallic heat spreaders (equivalent of the metallic body as taught col. 3, ln 8-12) having a heat transfer coefficient of at least 166 W/m-K (per col. 3, ln 8-12 teaches a range that overlaps with applicants, examiner further notes that the materials lists in many cases are known to have a coefficient higher than claimed). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Kluge to include the materials of Lin, the motivation would be to use materials with high heat transfer for better cooling. With regards to the limitation of being three dimensionally printed, this is a product-by-process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Prior Art Note
Examiner notes that no prior art was found applicable to the full limitations of claims 6, 16, and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bean jr. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0232994) teaches a data center chiller water tank combination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights