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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns” in ll. 13 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the flow is both uniform and turbulent, wherein a uniform flow is unchanged and a turbulent flow changes constantly. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns” will be interpreted as – which creates a turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns --.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitation “the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the first outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the cover plate is installed within a shelf relative to the first outer surface, wherein Claim 20 puts forth the cover plate is fixed to the first outer surface. Further clarification is required as it appears Claim 22 is drawn to a different embodiment than Claim 20.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A), hereinafter referred to as Sever and Sasaki, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Sever discloses heat sink comprising:
a heat sink body having a first port (2A) and a second port (2B), and the heat sink body defines a fluid channel between the first port and the second port to receive a flow of a cooling fluid between the first port and the second port (shown in figure 3); wherein
the heat sink body includes a channel base and a channel wall that extends from the channel base to define the fluid channel (shown in figures 2-3), the channel wall comprising a plurality of wall segments that form a non-straight channel wall profile (shown in figure 3, wherein the boundary fins (2E) are formed in the side wall); and
an array of pin fins (2F, “It can be understood, that the pin fins (2F) can equally be also conical, elliptical, diamond, raindrop, semicircular, crescent moon type or any other shape” (¶24)) arranged in a plurality of rows and columns located within the fluid channel and that extend from the channel base (shown in figure 2), the channel wall being located peripherally relative to the array of pin fins (shown in figure 2); wherein
the channel wall and the array of pin fins are positioned in a pattern that creates a cross-section such that there is a flow area which creates a flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns regardless of where on the heat sink body the first and second ports are located (shown in figures 2-3). Sever fails to disclose the channel wall and the array of pin fins are positioned in a pattern that creates a uniform and symmetrical cross-section such that there is a constant flow area which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns regardless of where on the heat sink body the first and second ports are located.
Sasaki, also drawn to a heat sink with pin fins, teaches the channel wall and the array of pin fins are positioned in a pattern that creates a uniform and symmetrical cross-section such that there is a constant flow area which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns regardless of where on the heat sink body the first and second ports are located (“Therefore, the flow velocity of the refrigerant flowing in the flow paths P2 and P3 is not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins closest to the flow path surface, but also between the fins adjacent to each other not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins close to the two rows from the flow path surface. And a uniform flow rate. Therefore, it is expected that the cooling efficiency of the cooler 2 is further improved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the channel wall and the array of pin fins being positioned in a pattern that creates a uniform and symmetrical cross-section such that there is a constant flow area which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns regardless of where on the heat sink body the first and second ports are located, as taught by Sasaki, the motivation being to improve the cooling efficiency of the cooler.
Regarding limitations “there is a constant flow area which creates a uniform and turbulent flow of the cooling fluid across each row and column of the plurality of rows and columns regardless of where on the heat sink body the first and second ports are located” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to a how a fluid flows within the heat sink and not the structural components of said heat sink, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semicircular wall segments that form a wavy channel wall profile (shown in figure 3 of Sever and shown in figures 11-12 of Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Sever further teaches the pin fins are cylindrical pin fins having a circular cross-sectional shape (shown in figure 3 of Sever and shown in figures 11-12 of Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Sever further teaches the pin fins are rods that have a diamond cross-sectional shape (“the pin fins (2F) can equally be also conical, elliptical, diamond, raindrop, semicircular, crescent moon type or any other shape”, ¶24, wherein Sever teaches that the pin fin shape can be a diamond).
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Sever further teaches each of the wall segments of the plurality of wall segments has a shape correspondence with a cross-sectional shape of the pin fins (shown in figure 3 of Sever and shown in figures 11-12 of Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semicircular wall segments that form a wavy channel wall profile, and the pin fins are cylindrical pin fins having a circular cross-sectional shape (shown in figure 3 of Sever and shown in figures 11-12 of Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semi-diamond wall segments that form a diamond channel wall profile (“The boundary fin (2E) is actually designed as row of pin fins integrated into the cavity's (2C) side wall” (¶25), wherein Sever discloses that the pin fins are capable of being a diamond shape, see ¶25), and the pin fins are rod pin fins having a diamond cross-sectional shape (“the pin fins (2F) can equally be also conical, elliptical, diamond, raindrop, semicircular, crescent moon type or any other shape” ¶24).
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semi-ovular wall segments that form an ovular channel wall profile (“The boundary fin (2E) is actually designed as row of pin fins integrated into the cavity's (2C) side wall” (¶25), wherein Sever discloses that the pin fins are capable of being a elliptical shape, see ¶25), and the pin fins are rod pin fins having an oval cross-sectional shape (“the pin fins (2F) can equally be also conical, elliptical, diamond, raindrop, semicircular, crescent moon type or any other shape” (¶24), also Sever states, “the pattern of the boundary fin (2E) is defined and dictated by the main, i.e. primary pattern of the pin fin (2F) array” (¶25)).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Sever teaches each of the wall segments of the plurality of wall segments lacks a shape correspondence with a cross-sectional shape of the pin fins (“a cross-section of the pin fin has a shape of at least one of a conical, elliptical, diamond, semicircular, raindrop or crescent moon shape type”, underline for emphasis, Claim 5 of Sever, wherein Sever teaches the combination of different pin fin shapes).
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semicircular wall segments that form a wavy channel wall profile (shown in figures 2-3 of Sever, wherein the pin fins cavity’s sidewall (2C) contains a plurality of fins (2E) and the pin fins are rod pin fins having a diamond cross-sectional shape (“a cross-section of the pin fin has a shape of at least one of a conical, elliptical, diamond, semicircular, raindrop or crescent moon shape type”, underline for emphasis, Claim 5 of Sever, wherein Sever teaches the combination of different pin fin shapes).
Regarding Claim 11 , a modified Sever further teaches the pin fins in the array have a uniform arrangement whereby each pin fin in the array is equidistantly spaced apart from adjacent pin fins (as taught by Sasaki in the rejection of Claim 1, (“Therefore, the flow velocity of the refrigerant flowing in the flow paths P2 and P3 is not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins closest to the flow path surface, but also between the fins adjacent to each other not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins close to the two rows from the flow path surface. And a uniform flow rate. Therefore, it is expected that the cooling efficiency of the cooler 2 is further improved”).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Sever further teaches the pin fins (2F of Sever) are arranged in different sets of rows and columns having different numbers of pin fins (shown in figure 3 of Sever, wherein the number of pin fins alternates along both the rows and the columns).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Sever further teaches the channel wall includes a first wall section (shown in figure 3 of Sever, being the bottom channel wall of the upper channel) and a second wall section opposite from the first wall section (shown in figure 3 of Sever, being the top channel wall of the upper channel), and the plurality of wall segments includes opposing wall segments respectively located on the first wall section and the second wall section (shown in figure 3 of Sever).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Sever further teaches the first port (2A) and the second port (2B) are located on a same side of the heat sink body (shown in figure 3), and the fluid channel includes a first channel portion and a second channel portion in which the cooling fluid flows in opposite directions (shown in figure 3), the first channel portion and the second channel portion being connected by a channel bridge (being the curved portion of the channel shown in figure 3 of Sever) and otherwise separated by a central body portion (2G) of the heat sink body (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 16, in the embodiment of figure 3, Sever fails to disclose the first port and the second port are located on opposite sides of the heat sink body. However, in the embodiment of figure 6, Sever teaches the first port (2A) and the second port (2b) are located on opposite sides of the heat sink body (shown in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide figure 3 of Sever with the first port and the second port are located on opposite sides of the heat sink body, as taught by Sever in figure 6, the motivation being to lessen the pressure drop within the working fluid loop, lessen the required pump capacity of the cooling system or align with fluid conduits currently deployed in a predetermined environment.
Alternately, the prior art to Sever teaches that a single pass-through fluid channel is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fluid channel configurations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a single pass-through fluid channel for a u-shaped fluid channel.
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Sever further teaches a shortest distance between adjacent pin fins (D1) is constant throughout the array of rows and columns of pin fins (D1), and as to pin fins positioned adjacent to the channel wall, a shortest distance between a pin fin positioned adjacent to the channel wall and the channel wall is the same as the shortest distance between adjacent pin fins in the rows and columns of the array of pin fins (as previously taught by Sasaki in the rejection of Claim 1, “The interval between adjacent pin fins is the same regardless of which pin fin is selected, and the flow rate of the refrigerant passing between adjacent pin fins is uniform regardless of which pin fin is selected” and “Therefore, the flow velocity of the refrigerant flowing in the flow paths P2 and P3 is not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins closest to the flow path surface, but also between the fins adjacent to each other not only between the flow path surface and the pin fins close to the two rows from the flow path surface. And a uniform flow rate. Therefore, it is expected that the cooling efficiency of the cooler 2 is further improved”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) as applied in Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 above and in further view of Hoffman et al. (Translation of DE102011118483A1), hereinafter referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 9, in addition to Sever, Hoffman, also drawn to a heat exchanger with pin fins, teaches each of the wall segments (16) of the plurality of wall segments (shown in figure 3) lacks a shape correspondence with a cross-sectional shape of the pin fins (shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with each of the wall segments of the plurality of wall segments lacking a shape correspondence with a cross-sectional shape of the pin fins, as taught by Hoffman, the motivation being to regulate the pressure drop, flow resistance or heat exchange capacity that is attributed to different pin fin shapes.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Sever further teaches the plurality of wall segments comprises adjacent semicircular wall segments that form a wavy channel wall profile (shown in figures 2-3 of Sever, wherein the pin fins cavity’s sidewall (2C) contains a plurality of fins (2E)) and the pin fins are rod pin fins having a diamond cross-sectional shape (“the pin fins (2F) can equally be also conical, elliptical, diamond, raindrop, semicircular, crescent moon type or any other shape”, ¶24). It is noted for the rejection of Claim 10, Sever teaches the pin fin shapes capable of being utilized with the heat sink, wherein Hoffman teaches it is old and well known to utilize different pin fin shapes in a channel and along said channel.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) as applied in Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 above and in further view of Maruyama (US PG Pub. 2016/0307821A1), hereinafter referred to as Maruyama.
Regarding Claim 16, in addition to Sever, Maruyama, also drawn to a cooling device, teaches the first port (23) and the second port (24) are located on opposite sides of the heat sink body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the first port and the second port are located on opposite sides of the heat sink body, as taught by Maruyama, the motivation being to lessen the pressure drop within the working fluid loop, lessen the required pump capacity of the cooling system or align with fluid conduits currently deployed in a predetermined environment.
Alternately, the prior art to Maruyama teaches that a single pass-through fluid channel (shown in figure 9) is an equivalent structure known in the art when compared to a u-shaped fluid channel (shown in figure 10). Therefore, because these two fluid channel configurations were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a single pass-through fluid channel for a u-shaped fluid channel.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) as applied in Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 above and in further view of Kang et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0096738A1), hereinafter referred to as Kang.
Regarding Claim 18, although Sever discloses a cover plate (3) fixed to an outer surface of the heat sink body (shown in figure 1) and that covers an expanse of the fluid channel (shown in figure 1), Sever fails to disclose the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf.
Kang, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf (shown in figure 4) formed relative to the outer surface at a step (shown in figure 4) and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base (shown in figure 4), the cover plate (50) being received by the recessed shelf (shown in figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the heat sink body including a recessed shelf formed relative to the outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf, as taught by Kang, the motivation being to increase the bonding strength and sealing capability of the cover by increasing the contact area between the cover and the heat sink body.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) as applied in Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 17 above and in further view of Kaufmann (USP 6473303B2), hereinafter referred to as Kaufmann.
Regarding Claim 18, although Sever discloses a cover plate (3) fixed to an outer surface of the heat sink body (shown in figure 1) and that covers an expanse of the fluid channel (shown in figure 1), Sever fails to disclose the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf.
Kaufmann, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf (shown in figure 1) formed relative to the outer surface at a step (“the metal border 21 is designed to be planar and lies on a step 12 which runs round the periphery of the cooler lower part 1” col. 3 ll. 46-48) and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base (shown in figures 1-2), the cover plate (20, 21) being received by the recessed shelf (shown in figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the heat sink body including a recessed shelf formed relative to the outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf, as taught by Kaufmann, the motivation being to increase the bonding strength and sealing capability of the cover by increasing the contact area between the cover and the heat sink body.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) and in view of Kwak et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0112388A1), hereinafter referred to as Sever, Sasaki and Kwak, respectively.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Sever further teaches an operational assembly comprising:
the heat sink according to claim 1 (see previously put forth rejection of Claim 1),
the heat sink including a first outer surface (shown in figures 2-3, being the outer surface situated above the pin fins on the outside of the heat sink (2)) and a second outer surface (shown in figure 2, being the outer surface of the heat sink directly adjacent the surface from which the pin fins (2F) extend) opposite from the first outer surface (shown in figure 3), and
the channel base is an internal surface of the heat sink body (shown in figure 2, wherein the channel base bounds the flow path for the working fluid) in thermal communication with the second outer surface (shown in figure 2, wherein all of the surfaces of the heat sink are in thermal communication with one another) and the array of pin fins (2F) extends into the fluid channel from the channel base in a direction opposite from the second outer surface (shown in figure 2); and
an electronics package (4A) mounted to the second outer surface of the heat sink body (shown in figure 1), the electronics package including an electronic component (4A) that generates heat, the electronic component being positioned adjacent to the second outer surface of the heat sink body such that heat generated by the electronic component thermally transfers through the channel base and pin fins to the fluid channel (shown in figures 1-3). Sever fails to explicitly disclose a cover plate fixed to the first outer surface of the heat sink body and that covers an expanse of the fluid channel.
Kwak, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches a cover plate (“FIGS. 1 and 2 show the exposed internal structure of heat sink 100 to explain the internal structure thereof, but a skilled person in the art would recognize that a cover member (not shown) covering the first region A, the second region B, and the third region C may be further provided” ¶60) fixed to a first outer surface of the heat sink body (shown in figure 2, wherein the cover plate covers the fin regions) and that covers an expanse of the fluid channel (shown in figure 2, wherein the cover contains the working fluid within the heat sink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with a cover plate fixed to the first outer surface of the heat sink body and that covers an expanse of the fluid channel, as taught by Kwak, the motivation being to enclose the fluid channel, mitigating leakage and ensuring thermal exchange between the working fluid and the fins.
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Sever further teaches the channel base (shown in figure 2, wherein the channel base bounds the flow path for the working fluid) and the second outer surface (shown in figure 2, being the outer surface of the heat sink directly adjacent the surface from which the pin fins (2F) extend) are opposing surfaces of an outer portion of the heat sink body (shown in figure 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) and in view of Kwak et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0112388A1) as applied in Claims 20-21 above and in further view of Kang et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0096738A1).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Sever fails to disclose the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the first outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf.
Kang, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf (shown in figure 4) formed relative to the first outer surface at a step (shown in figure 4) and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base (shown in figure 4), the cover plate (50) being received by the recessed shelf (shown in figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the first outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf, as taught by Kang, the motivation being to increase the bonding strength and sealing capability of the cover by increasing the contact area between the cover and the heat sink body.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever (US PG Pub. 2016/0029516A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (Translation of JP2016105441A) and in view of Kwak et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0112388A1) as applied in Claims 20-21 above and in further view of Kaufmann (USP 6473303B2).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Sever fails to disclose the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the first outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf.
Kaufmann, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf (shown in figure 1) formed relative to the first outer surface at a step (“the metal border 21 is designed to be planar and lies on a step 12 which runs round the periphery of the cooler lower part 1” col. 3 ll. 46-48) and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base (shown in figures 1-2), the cover plate (20, 21) being received by the recessed shelf (shown in figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sever with the heat sink body includes a recessed shelf formed relative to the first outer surface at a step and that extends along a perimeter of an edge of the channel wall opposite from the channel base, the cover plate being received by the recessed shelf, as taught by Kaufmann, the motivation being to increase the bonding strength and sealing capability of the cover by increasing the contact area between the cover and the heat sink body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights