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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 is rejected for having multiple dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation.
Per claim 1 Chen teaches a heat sink (10; [0001], [0015]), comprising: a heat radiation structure body (12 & 16, see fig.2-3), the heat radiation structure body is configured to arrange on one side of a heat source (31, see fig.3; [0016]), the heat radiation structure body (12) is provided with a slotted structure (13; [0015]), the slotted structure extends in a direction away from the heat source (see fig.2-3), wherein an opening of the slotted structure is formed in one end of the heat radiation structure body away from the heat source (see fig.2-3); and a first cooling structure (20), the first cooling structure is laid on an inner wall of the slotted structure (see fig.1-3), wherein the first cooling structure is provided with first cooling channels for adsorbing a liquid coolant (18; [0016]).
Per claim 2 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, wherein the first cooling structure (20) is a capillary structure ([0015]), and pores in the capillary structure form the first cooling channels ([0016])
Per claim 3 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 2, wherein a cross-section of the slotted structure is circular (see fig.2-3) or rectangular, wherein the first cooling structure (20) is arranged on a side wall and a bottom wall of the slotted structure (see fig.2-3; [0015]).
Per claim 4 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, wherein the heat radiation structure body is made from a vapor chamber ([0003], [0016], “paragraph [0003] discloses the features of a vapor chamber though not explicitly defined as a vapor chamber”, “paragraph [0016] discloses that the heat from the heat source can be discharged to the entire heat dissipating portion, thus teaching that the heat can be spread through the body of the pipe like a vapor chamber as oppose to a heat pipe that has heat transported from a localized source to a heat sink at another end.”).
Per claim 7 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, wherein the heat radiation structure body is of a radial structure, and the slotted structure is arranged at a center of the heat radiation structure body (see fig.1-3).
Per claim 9 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, wherein two heat radiation structure bodies (12) are provided (see fig.4), the two heat radiation structure bodies are arranged in a mirror image manner (see fig.4), wherein openings in the two heat radiation structure bodies are arranged opposite to each other (see fig.4), so that slotted structures (13) on the two heat radiation structure bodies jointly enclose a sealed space (see fig.4, “they jointly enclose their respective sealed spaces”).
Per claim 11 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, further comprising: a sealing plate (16; [0016]), the sealing plate is arranged at the opening of the slotted structure to cooperate with the slotted structure-to form a sealed space (see fig.1-3; [0016]).
Per claim 12 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 11, wherein the opening of the slotted structure (13) is provided with a counter bore (14, see fig.2-3), a depth of the a counter bore is less than or equal to a thickness of the sealing plate, and the sealing plate completely falls into the counter bore (see fig.2).
Per claim 13 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 11, wherein the sealed plate is provided with a groove (13 & 17) on one side of the sealed space (see fig.2-3, “element 16 is provided with a groove 13 on one side and groove 17 on another”).
Per claim 14 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 13, wherein the groove is of a groove structure with a deep middle (13) and a shallow edge (17, see fig.2; [0016]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event that 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, 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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation.
Per claim 5 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 4, except for wherein a ratio of a thickness of the bottom wall of the slotted structure to a thickness of the vapor chamber is 0.05 to 0.1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a ratio of a thickness of the bottom wall of the slotted structure to a thickness of the vapor chamber is 0.05 to 0.1, because it ensure the proper proportion for effective cooling, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Per claim 6 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 5, except for wherein the thickness of the bottom wall of the slotted structure is 2 mm to 3 mm, and the thickness of the vapor chamber is 30 mm to 35 mm.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the thickness of the bottom wall of the slotted structure be 2 mm to 3 mm, and the thickness of the vapor chamber be 30 mm to 35 mm, because it ensure the proper size for effective cooling, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation in view of Rosenfeld et al. US2005/0022984.
Per claim 8 Chen teaches the heat sink according to claim 1, wherein the first cooling structure (20) is made of Cu ([0016]).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the first cooling structure is made of Al powder or Cu powder ([0016]), wherein the Al powder or the Cu powder is 200 mesh to 800 mesh.
Rosenfeld et al. however discloses wherein the first cooling structure is made of Al powder or Cu powder, wherein the Al powder or the Cu powder is 200 mesh to 800 mesh ([0064]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling structure be made from 200 mesh copper powder, because it ensures efficient wicking to enables efficient heat dissipation of heat from the heat source.
Claim(s) 15 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation in view of Garner US6938680.
Per claim 15 Chen teaches a heat sink manufacturing method, comprising: a slotted structure (13; [0015]) on an end surface of one end of a heat radiation structure body (12 & 16, see fig.2-3) away from a heat source (31, see fig.3; [0016]); and laying a first cooling structure (20) on an inner wall of the slotted structure, causing the first cooling structure to comprise first cooling channels (see fig.1-3), and pre-storing a liquid coolant (18) in the first cooling channels ([0016]).
Chen does not explicitly teach machining a slotted structure
Garner et al. however discloses machining a slotted structure (col.1, line 50-67 & col.2, line 1-3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a method such as machining to create the slotted structure as taught by Garner et al. in view of the heat sink of Chen, because it enables high precision and tight tolerances, thus ensuring proper liquid flow for effective heat dissipation.
Per claim 20 Chen in view of Garner teaches a computer, comprising a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and a heat sink, wherein the heat sink is arranged on one side of the CPU, and the heat sink is the heat sink according to claim 1, or the heat sink is manufactured by the heat sink manufacturing method according to claim 15 ([0001]-[0008], “the inventions aims to solve the complex and time consuming production of heat dissipation components of CPUs and graphic cards in computing systems”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation in view of Garner US6938680 as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Rosenfeld et al. US2005/0022984.
Per claim 16 Chen in view of Garner et al. teaches the heat sink manufacturing method according to claim 15, wherein the first cooling structure (20) is formed by copper ([0016]).
Chen in view of Garner et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first cooling structure is formed by copper sintering Cu powder or Al powder on the inner wall of the slotted structure
Rosenfeld et al. however discloses wherein the first cooling structure is formed by copper sintering Cu powder or Al powder on the inner wall of the slotted structure ([0064]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling structure be made from sintered copper powder as taught by Rosenfeld et al. in the heat sink manufacturing method of Chen in view of Garner et al., because it ensures efficient wicking to enables efficient heat dissipation of heat from the heat source.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen DE202010000787 using espacenet for english translation in view of Garner US6938680 as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Chuang US2002/0033249.
Per claim 18 Chen in view of Garner teaches a heat sink manufacturing method according to claim 15, wherein a sealing plate (16) covers an opening of the slotted structure ([0016]) and is sealed, so that a sealed space is formed between the slotted structure and the sealing plate (see fig.1-3).
Chen in view of Garner does not explicitly teach welding
Chuang however discloses welding a sealing plate cover (101 & 102) to an opening of a slotted structure (103, see fig.103; [0028]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to weld the sealing cover to the opening of the slotted structure because it ensures high joint strength for proper sealing of the joints.
Allowable Subject matter
4. Claims 10, 17 & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10, includes allowable subject matter because of the heat sink according to claim 9, wherein the first cooling structure is arranged in the heat radiation structure body at one end close to the heat source, and the heat sink further comprises: a second cooling structure, the second cooling structure is configured to arrange in the heat radiation structure body at one end away from the heat source, wherein the second cooling structure further comprises a plurality of second cooling channels, the liquid coolant is pre-stored in the plurality of second cooling channels, and the second cooling structure is only laid on the side wall of the slotted structure.
Claim 17, includes allowable subject matter because of the heat sink manufacturing method according to claim 15, wherein two heat radiation structure bodies are placed together in a mirror image manner with one end away from the heat source as the center and are welded and fixed, so that slotted structures on the two heat radiation structure bodies form a sealed space.
Claim 19 depends on claim 17 therefore allowable for the same reason.
Email Communication
5. Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mok et al. US2006/0102324 discloses a method of constructing a semiconductor chip cooling device consists of multiple fans and heat sinks to provide redundant cooling capability.
Chuang US2002/0033249 discloses a heat dissipation apparatus.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior are included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 EST.
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 GANDHI can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights