Email Communication
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, 502.02, 502.03.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 09/12/2024 and 10/17/2025 have been fully considered and is attached hereto.
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 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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al (US 2015/0009631) in view of Shedd et al (US 2017/0105313).
Regarding Claim 1, Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) discloses an impingement cooling system (100) comprising: a porous heat spreader (120) in thermal contact with a heat source (104), (Fig 1); two or more nozzles (108) each configured to direct a fluid (130) as a jet (130) or a spray impinging upon the porous heat spreader (120), (¶ 28, II. 1-5), (Fig 1); and a baseplate (110) disposed between the porous heat spreader (120) and the heat source (104), (Fig 1), however Joshi does not discloses wherein the two or more nozzles are each configured to direct the fluid at different angles relative to the baseplate.
Instead, Shedd (In Fig 35) teaches wherein the two or more nozzles (155/156) are each configured to direct the fluid (50) at different angles relative to the baseplate (430), (Fig 35).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Joshi with Shedd with the two or more nozzles being each configured to direct the fluid at different angles relative to the baseplate to benefit from preventing coolant from pooling near the rear wall of the outlet chamber, decreasing the likelihood of stagnation points on the surface to be cooled near the rear wall of the outlet chamber (Shedd, ¶ 495-496).
Regarding Claim 2, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader is made of one of: a metal, a metal alloy (¶ 30, II. 1-8), carbon, graphite, or ceramic.
Regarding Claim 3, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further disclose wherein the porous heat spreader (520) is comprises a pin-fin matrix (515), (Fig 11).
Regarding Claim 4, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (120) comprises a porous media that is one of: fibrous (metal fibers, ¶ 26, II. 1-8), a foam, or unstructured.
Regarding Claim 5, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the fluid (130) is configured to undergo a phase change from a liquid (130) to a gas (131) on or within the porous heat spreader (120), (¶ 28, II. 5-8).
Regarding Claim 6, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein at least one nozzle (108) of the two or more nozzles (108) is configured to direct the fluid (130) orthogonally to the baseplate (110), (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi as modified does not disclose wherein at least one nozzle of the two or more nozzles is configured to direct the fluid at an oblique angle to the baseplate.
Instead, Shedd (In Fig 35) teaches wherein at least one nozzle (155,156) of the two or more nozzles (155/156) is configured to direct the fluid (50) at an oblique angle to the baseplate (430), (Fig 35).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Joshi with Shedd with one nozzle of the two or more nozzles being configured to direct the fluid at an oblique angle to the baseplate to benefit from preventing coolant from pooling near the rear wall of the outlet chamber, decreasing the likelihood of stagnation points on the surface to be cooled near the rear wall of the outlet chamber (Shedd, ¶ 495-496).
Regarding Claim 8, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (120) is spatially homogeneous and isotropic (¶ 30, II. 1-11), (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) is anisotropic (Fig 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has a spatially-varying microstructure and porosity (Fig 10).
Regarding Claim 11, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 9, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has first porosity at a first location (1st location, Fig 10 below) where the fluid impinges thereupon, and wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has a second porosity (2nd location, Fig 10 below), less than the first porosity, at a second location spaced apart from the first location (Fig 10 below).
Regarding Claim 12, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 11, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has a third porosity (3rd location, Fig 10 below) greater than the second porosity (2nd location, Fig 10 below) at a third location, wherein the second location is between the first location and the third location (Fig 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
755
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (120) has a monolithic structure (¶ 30, II. 1-11).
Regarding Claim 14, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (520) is a one of a plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders (520), with each of the discrete porous heat spreaders (520) configured to conduct heat from a common heat source (104), (Fig 11).
Regarding Claim 16, Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) discloses an impingement cooling system (100) comprising: a porous heat spreader (120) having at least one spatially-varying property (Fig 5); and two or more nozzles (108/108) each configured to direct a fluid (130) as a jet (130) or a spray impinging upon the porous heat spreader (120); and a baseplate (110) adjacent to the porous heat spreader (120), (Fig 1), wherein the at least one spatially-varying property includes at least one of a microstructure or a porosity (¶ 26, II. 1-8), however Joshi does not disclose wherein the two or more nozzles are each configured to direct the fluid at different angles relative to the baseplate.
Instead, Shedd (In Fig 35) teaches wherein the two or more nozzles (155/156) are each configured to direct the fluid (50) at different angles relative to the baseplate (430), (Fig 35).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Joshi with Shedd with the two or more nozzles being each configured to direct the fluid at different angles relative to the baseplate to benefit from preventing coolant from pooling near the rear wall of the outlet chamber, decreasing the likelihood of stagnation points on the surface to be cooled near the rear wall of the outlet chamber (Shedd, ¶ 495-496).
Regarding Claim 17, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 16, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the at least one spatially-varying property includes both the microstructure (metal fibers, ¶ 26, II. 1-8) and the porosity (metal fibers, ¶ 26, II. 1-8), (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 17, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has first porosity at a first location (1st location, Fig 10 above) where the fluid (130) impinges thereupon, and wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has a second porosity, less than the first porosity, at a second location (2nd location, Fig 10 above) spaced apart from the first location.
Regarding Claim 19, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 18, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein the porous heat spreader (420) has a third porosity greater than the second porosity at a third location (3rd location, Fig 10 above), wherein the second location is between the first location and the third location (Fig 10 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 16, however Joshi (In Figs 1, 5, 7-8 and 10-11) further discloses wherein at least one nozzle (108) of the two or more nozzles (108/108) is configured to direct the fluid (130) orthogonally to the baseplate (110), (Fig 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi in view of Shedd and further in view of Bhunia et al (US 2013/0032311).
Regarding Claim 15, Joshi in view of Shedd discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Joshi as modified does not disclose wherein the porous heat spreader is a one of a plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders, with the plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders configured to conduct heat from a plurality of independent heat sources.
Instead Bhunia (In Fig 2) teaches wherein the porous heat spreader (110) is a one of a plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders (110), with the plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders (110) configured to conduct heat from a plurality of independent heat sources (115), (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Joshi with Shedd and further with Bhunia with the porous heat spreader being a one of a plurality of discrete porous heat spreaders and configured to conduct heat from a plurality of independent heat sources to benefit from providing passive microporous wick structures to facilitate bubble nucleation for improved power dissipation for high power devices (Bhunia , ¶ 17, II. 1-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; Diamond Foam Spray Cooling System US 7,331,377, Evaporator Assembly US 2017/0146273, Jet Vectoring Fluid Impingement Cooling Using Pivoting Nozzles US 2019/0364691, EMI Shielding Fluid Control Apparatus US 6,104,610. Other pertinent art made of record are on form PTO-892 notice of reference cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR JALALI whose telephone number is (303)297-4308. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on 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 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 571-272-1000.
/AMIR A JALALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights