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 Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-9, the recitation "using a laser powder-bed fusing or selective laser melting process…by laser fusion" is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 processes."
Regarding claim 13, the recitation "obtained by the hybrid 3D fabrication method of claim 10" is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 processes."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Binek (US20230294175A1).
Regarding claim 1, Binek discloses a heat sink (see heat exchanger 300; Fig. 1-3) comprising: a substrate (substrate 204); and a plurality of fins (fins 306), with a first layer of each fin being formed directly on the substrate using a laser powder-bed fusing (LPBF) or selective laser melting (SLM) process on a fin powder deposited on the substrate, wherein the plurality of fins is built up, layer by layer by laser fusion, to reach a predetermined height (laser powder bed diffusion - ¶[0002] & ¶[0030-0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek (US20230294175A1) in view of Busch (DE102018131628A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Binek further teaches wherein the fin powder and substrate are metal, however, is silent to the material being copper or an alloy thereof.
Busch, also directed to a heat sink formed by additively manufacturing fins onto a substrate, teaches wherein both elements may be copper or an alloy thereof (copper & copper alloy – Page 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binek to include copper or copper alloy as taught by Busch, in order to provide a material with good thermal conductivity properties (Page 2).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek (US20230294175A1) in view of Cannell (US6729383B1).
Regarding claims 4-7, Binek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Binek does not teach each of the plurality of fins has a height: thickness ratio range of substantially 4:1 to 20:1, each of the plurality of fins has a height: spacing ratio range of substantially 4:1 to 35:1, each of the plurality of fins is configured with a parallelogram cross-sectional shape or geometry, wherein the plurality of fins is configured in rows, wherein a row spacing is substantially equal or greater than an oblique spacing between adjacent fins in a row.
Cannell teaches each of the plurality of fins has a height: thickness ratio range of substantially 4:1 to 20:1 (from ¶[0055], height = 6 mm, thickness = 1 mm, resulting in a ratio of 6:1), each of the plurality of fins has a height: spacing ratio range of substantially 4:1 to 35:1 (from ¶[0055], height = 4 mm, spacing = 0.6 mm, resulting in a ratio of 6.7:1), each of the plurality of fins is configured with a parallelogram cross-sectional shape or geometry (see shape of 94 in Fig. 10-11), the plurality of fins is configured in rows, wherein a row spacing is substantially equal or greater than an oblique spacing between adjacent fins in a row (row and oblique spacing are both g; Fig. 10/11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binek to include the fin geometries as taught by Cannell, in order to reduce flow rate loss and improve heat transfer efficiency (¶[0061]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek (US20230294175A1) in view of Au (US20210105913A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Binek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Binek as modified does not teach a plurality of threaded holes for mounting a protective cover over or around the plurality of fins, a plurality of holes for mounting the substrate to a member that requires heat dissipation.
Au teaches (see Fig. 2) a plurality of threaded holes (holes in 150 with threaded fasteners 206 & ¶[0032]) for mounting a protective cover (shroud 200) over or around the plurality of fins, a plurality of holes (holes in 150 with fasteners 330) for mounting the substrate to a member (IC 101) that requires heat dissipation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binek to include the holes of Au, in order to removably mount the substrate and protect the heat sink from damage (¶[0034] & ¶[0028]).
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek (US20230294175A1) in view of Stasny (US20160109130A).
Regarding claim 10, Binek teaches a laser powder-bed fusing (LPBF) or selective laser melting (SLM) method for hybrid 3D print fabrication of a heat sink (see heat exchanger 300; Fig. 1-3), the method comprises: forming a substrate (substrate 204); forming a powder-bed (powder bed 24) of a fin powder over the substrate; operating a laser (via laser beam device 58) to melt and to fuse particles of the fin powder to build a first layer of the fins directly on the substrate; adding the fin powder to increase a height of the powder-bed, layer by layer; and operating the laser to fuse the fin powder to build up the fins, layer by layer (layer by layer fashion - ¶[0030]), until the fins reach a predetermined height (laser powder bed diffusion - ¶[0002] & ¶[0030-0033]).
Binek is silent to wherein the substrate is formed using subtractive machining.
Stasny teaches a laser additively manufacturing method for hybrid 3D print fabrication of a heat sink (see Fig. 4 & 8), the method comprises: forming a substrate (base portion 26 & step 802) using subtractive machining (grinding or other material-removal techniques - ¶[0034]), and subsequently using a laser additively manufacturing method for adding fins to the base material (step 804).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binek to include the subtractive machining of the substrate as taught by Stasny, in order to remove unwanted material on the substrate prior to adding heat transfer fins or the like (¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Binek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Binek further teaches operating the laser to build the fins, layer by layer, comprises generating a pattern of the fin geometry from a computer-aided design (CAD) or computer system (computer aided design system - ¶[0030]) and outputting the pattern to a scanner (electromagnetic scanner - ¶[0033]) to direct a laser beam (62 via 58) from the laser onto the fin powder (powder - ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Binek as modified further teaches a heat sink (heat exchanger 300) obtained by the hybrid 3D fabrication method of claim 10 (see above).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binek (US20230294175A1) in view of Stasny (US20160109130A) and Cannell (US6729383B1).
Regarding claim 12, Binek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Binek as modified does not teach the pattern comprises rows of the fins, with each fin forming a parallelogram shape, and adjacent fins in a row are spaced apart at an oblique side of the parallelogram.
Cannell teaches wherein the pattern comprises rows of the fins (94; Fig. 10/11), with each fin forming a parallelogram shape, and adjacent fins in a row are spaced apart at an oblique side of the parallelogram.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binek to include the fin geometries as taught by Cannell, in order to reduce flow rate loss and improve heat transfer efficiency (¶[0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763