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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B, figs 5-6 and claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
The applicant asserts that claims 15-20 read on Species B, however, the Examiner deems claims 15-20 readable only on Species C-F because the claimed dimples with a lead end and a trail end in claims 15-16 is only found in Fig. 8a which is species C and the claimed one channel includes at least two of the first set of dimples with a common shape and a different dimension in claim 17 is only found in figures 7 species C-F and a cambered airfoil shapes in claims 18-20 is only shown in figures 8a-8d species C-F. Claims 15-20 stand withdrawn from consideration
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.
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 4 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 recites the limitation of “dimples are located between the plurality of fins or on the plurality of fins” and claim 4 further recites “wherein the plurality of dimples are disposed on the plurality of fins” which omits structural relationship if the dimples in claim 1 are between the plurality of fins as recited and not on the fins as required in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US Patent No.: 8,418,750 hereinafter “Tsai”).
With respect to claim 1, Tsai discloses a heat sink (Fig. 3, 111) comprising: a substrate having an upper surface (Fig. 3, 12); and a plurality of fins extending outwardly from the upper surface (Fig. 3, fins 14), wherein the plurality of fins extend from a base to a tip and a fin height is defined by a distance between the base and the tip (Fig. 4 shows fins 14 extend from 121); a plurality of dimples being round (Figs. 3-4, dimples 13); and wherein the plurality of dimples are located between the plurality of fins or on the plurality of fins (Fig. 3, dimples 13 are between fins 14).
It is noted that claim 1 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. being 3D-printed) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 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).
With respect to claim 2, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 1 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of fins define a plurality of channels along a longitudinal direction across the upper surface (Fig. 3, channels between fins 14); and wherein the plurality of dimples are disposed between at least one of the channels (Fig. 3, dimples 13 are between the channels between fins 14).
With respect to claim 3, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 2 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of fins define a first channel and a second channel (Fig. 3, channels between fins 14 create multiple channels between the multiple fins); wherein the plurality of dimples include a first group of dimples and a second group of dimples, wherein the first group of dimples are arranged in a first pattern within the first channel, and the second group of dimples are arranged in a second pattern within the second channel, wherein the second pattern is different than the first pattern (See figure below. First group is in a triangle and second group is in a straight line).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 2 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of dimples extends outwardly from at least one of the plurality of fins adjacent a base of the at least one of the plurality of fins (Fig. 4, dimple 13 extends outwardly at 15 adjacent to a base of the fin 14).
With respect to claim 6, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 1 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of dimples is disposed adjacent a first end of a first fin and a second end of a second fin (Fig. 3, there are dimples 13 near ends of fins 14); and wherein the first fin and the second fin are arranged in a common row (Fig. 3, fins 14 are in a row).
With respect to claim 7, Tsai discloses a heat sink (Fig. 3, 111) comprising: a substrate having an upper surface (Fig. 3, 12), a first side, and a second side opposite the first side (Fig. 3, square substrate has first and second opposite sides); a plurality of fins extending outwardly from the upper surface along a longitudinal direction from adjacent the first side to adjacent the second side (Figs. 3-4, fins 14 extend from a first end to a second end); a plurality of dimples having side surfaces that converge to a peak (Figs. 3-4, dimples 13 extend to a peak 15), and have a parabolic shape (Fig. 4, 13); wherein the plurality of dimples are located on the upper surface between the plurality of fins or on a surface of the plurality of fins (Fig. 3, dimples 13 are between fins 14).
It is noted that claim 7 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. the plurality of dimples are 3D-printed dimples) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 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).
With respect to claim 8, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of fins define at least one channel (Fig. 3, channels between fins 14); wherein the plurality of dimples include a first group of dimples and a second group of dimples; and wherein the first group of dimples are arranged in a first pattern within the at least one channel, and the second group of dimples are arranged in a second pattern within the at least one channel (See figure in claim 3 above), wherein the second pattern is different than the first pattern (See figure in claim 3 above).
With respect to claim 9, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 8 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the at least one channel includes the first pattern adjacent the first side and the second pattern adjacent the second side (See figure in claim 3 above. Both patterns are broadly adjacent to both sides).
With respect to claim 10, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of dimples include a first shape and a second shape (See figure in claim 3 above. Triangular formation and linear shapes); wherein the plurality of fins define at least one channel (Fig. 3, fins 14 define multiple channels between); and wherein the at least one channel includes the plurality of dimples with the first shape and the second shape (See figure in claim 3 above).
With respect to claim 11, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 10 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the at least one channel includes the first shape adjacent the first side and the second shape adjacent the second side (See figure in claim 3 above. Triangular formation and linear shapes adjacent first and second sides).
With respect to claim 12, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of dimples include a first group of dimples arranged in a first pattern and a second group of dimples arranged in a second pattern (See figure in claim 3 above); wherein the plurality of dimples include a first shape and a second shape (Fig 3 above, triangular shape and linear shape); wherein the plurality of fins define at least one channel (Fig. 3, fins 14 create a channel); and wherein the at least one channel includes the first pattern, the second pattern, and the plurality of dimples with the first shape and the second shape (See figure in claim 3 above).
With respect to claim 13, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the parabolic shape is concave or convex (Fig. 4, 13).
With respect to claim 14, Tsai discloses a heat sink (Fig. 3, 111) comprising: a substrate having an upper surface (Fig. 3, 12), a first side, and a second side opposite the first side (Fig. 3, substrate has 4 sides); a plurality of fins extending outwardly from the upper surface along a longitudinal direction from adjacent the first side to adjacent the second side (Fig. 3, fins 14 extend from a first side to a second side), wherein the plurality of fins extend from a base to a tip and a fin height is defined by a distance between the base and the tip (Fig. 4, fins 14 extend from base at 121); wherein the substrate defines a first set of dimples located on the upper surface between the plurality of fins (Fig. 3, dimples 13), and wherein the first set of dimples have a dimple height less than 30% of the fin height (Fig. 4, dimples 13 are less than 30% a height of fin 14); and wherein the plurality of fins define a second set of dimples on a surface of the plurality of fins that is less than 30% of the fin height or above 70% of the fin height (See figure in claim 3 above for two different dimple sets and figure 4 for height of dimples).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US Patent No.: 8,418,750 hereinafter “Tsai”) in view of Yang et al. (US Patent No.: 11,761,719 hereinafter “Yang”).
With respect to claim 4, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 1 as discussed above. Tsai does not disclose wherein the plurality of dimples are disposed on the plurality of fins within a region that is less than 30% of the fin height or above 70% of the fin height.
Yang teaches dimples on fins that is less than 30% of the fin height (Figs. 5-6 fins 20b have dimples C shown in fig 6 on less than 30% of the height). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the fins of Tsai with dimples on the lower part of the fins as taught by Yang to have different thermal conductivities on the lower portion of the fin to avoid excessive increase in temperature (Col. 2, lines 48-64).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US Patent No.: 8,418,750 hereinafter “Tsai”) in view of Konno (US Publication No.: 2011/0209858).
With respect to claim 10, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. If it can be shown that Tsai does not disclose the plurality of dimples include a first shape and a second shape then the reference Kono teaches dimples having a first and second shape (Fig. 2, dimples 2, 3 and 6 are all different shapes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the dimples of Tsai to have different dimple shapes as taught by Konno to aid in surface area and heat exchange efficiency (Para 0026).
With respect to claim 11, Tsai and Konno teach the heat sink of claim 10 as discussed above. Tsai modified by Konno teach the at least one channel includes the first shape adjacent the first side and the second shape adjacent the second side (Konno figs. 1-3 has different dimple shapes 2. 3. 6 between channels separated by 4).
With respect to claim 12, Tsai discloses the heat sink of claim 7 as discussed above. Tsai also discloses wherein the plurality of dimples include a first group of dimples arranged in a first pattern and a second group of dimples arranged in a second pattern (See figure in claim 3 above); wherein the plurality of dimples include a first shape and a second shape (Fig 3 above, triangular shape and linear shape); wherein the plurality of fins define at least one channel (Fig. 3, fins 14 create a channel); and wherein the at least one channel includes the first pattern, the second pattern, and the plurality of dimples with the first shape and the second shape (See figure in claim 3 above).
If it can be shown that Tsai does not disclose the plurality of dimples include a first shape and a second shape then the reference Kono teaches dimples having a first and second shape (Fig. 2, dimples 2, 3 and 6 are all different shapes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the dimples of Tsai to have different dimple shapes as taught by Konno to aid in surface area and heat exchange efficiency (Para 0026).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights