DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tapered branched protrusions” of claim 1 and “tapering branched protrusions” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims, in particular independent claims 1 and 13, appear to require that individually branched sub-protrusions each taper along their length.
The specification appears to only infer the tapering of the cross-section of the entire heat sink from its base to its periphery. The word “taper” appears only twice in the Specification. In Para. [0086] (as published) describes a fractal design which has “a branched architecture with a tapering cross section from the base to the periphery”. This description is in alignment with many of the different disclosed embodiments wherein cross-sections taken across the entire heat sink are successively smaller as one proceeds from the base toward the periphery, e.g. Fig. 23.
In the second instance, Para. [0135] mentions a multiscale fractal “with outwardly tapering branches”. The overall discussion of this paragraph is about the effect of having asymmetries in the various branches and the cross-sections of individual branches are compared to each other in such a way that suggests that they are constant at each portion of a branch or sub-branch. This description comports, again, with the disclosure at Fig. 23 wherein at branching points (such as the first branching point after the central core circle) one branch may have a different cross-section than its adjacent branch, both branches have a non-tapering cross-section, and the cross-section of each overall branch from the core tapers via the divisions.
No figure illustrates tapering within an individual sub-branch.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 depend from claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-14, 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Coe (US 3,220,471).
Regarding claim 1, Coe teaches a heatsink comprising: a base structure (13) configured to integrate with a heat source (T); a heat transmissive body (11) receiving heat from the base structure; and a heat transfer surface surrounding the heat transmissive body (see Fig. 2) configured to transfer heat to a surrounding heat transfer medium (air blown by the fan 30), the heat transfer surface having a plurality of tapered branched protrusions (e.g. first lateral protrusions which include 18 and 19 at their upper surfaces) with different cross sectional areas with respect to distance from a preceding branch point (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Coe teaches a heatsink comprising: a base structure (13) configured to integrate with a heat source (T); a heat transmissive body (11) receiving heat from the base structure; and a heat transfer surface surrounding the heat transmissive body (see Fig. 2) configured to transfer heat to a surrounding heat transfer medium (air blown by the fan 30), the heat transfer surface having a plurality of tapered branched protrusions (e.g. first lateral protrusions which include 18 and 19 at their upper surfaces) each tapering branch dividing into at least two secondary branches at a respective branch point (Fig. 1; closer to the center than 18 or 19, where the second downward sub-fin separates) each having different cross-sectional areas (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Coe further teaches that: the heat transfer surface comprises a plurality of successive branch points (at least two successive branch points in Fig. 1) each with a smaller cross-sectional area, per claims 2 and 14; more branches and a higher cross-sectional area are provided radially outward (see Fig. 1) where there is greater flow than radially inward where there is reduced flow, per claim 3; a blower (30) moves the heat transfer medium over the heat transfer surface (see Fig. 1) and the spatial flow is inhomogenous (there is no homogenizing structure for taught to reduce the inherent turbulence and chaos of an axial fan; additionally the flow of an axial fan is non-homogenous radially), per claim 4; the heat transfer surface has a fractal geometry (see Figs. 1 and 2) describable by an iterated function, per claims 12 and 19.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-14, 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Chiu (US 2007/0296071).
Chiu teaches a heatsink control method for a heatsink comprising a base structure (317) interfacing with the heat source (310) a heat transmissive body (fins ) configured to receive heat from the base structure; and a heat transfer surface surrounding the heat transmissive body (see e.g. Fig. 3) configured to transfer heat to a surrounding heat transfer medium (air), a plurality of protrusions into the heat exchange medium (the fins; Fig. 3); the method comprising detecting a flow induced characteristic of the heat transfer medium (noise; Para. [0024]) detecting a temperature (via 332) and controlling a variable rate of flow in dependence on the tempterautre and flow induced characteristic (noise; see Para. [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coe in view of Asahi (US 2007/0131409).
Regarding claim 11, Coe does not teach varying flow rate of the blower or controlling its direction.
Asahi teaches a heat exchange device (23) with a heat exchange surface (27) which includes a component to control changes of a direction fo heat transfer medium flow over time (see Figs. 6-7; Para. [0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time fo the invention to provide the device of Coe with the variable fans (varying between on and off during operation) in order to prevent degradation of performance via particle accumulation, as taught by Asahi.
Claim 9 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coe in view of Asahi (US 2007/0131409) and CN 201689265 (‘265).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Coe does not teach varying flow rate of the blower or controlling its direction.
Asahi teaches a heat exchange device (23) with a heat exchange surface (27) which includes a component to control changes of a direction fo heat transfer medium flow over time (see Figs. 6-7; Para. [0037]-[0038]) in order to remove dust.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Coe with the variable fans (varying between on and off during operation) in order to prevent degradation of performance via particle accumulation, as taught by Asahi.
Coe, as modified, does not include a dust sensor but merely alternates fan direction based on measured operating times.
‘265 teaches that it is old and well-known to measure dust accumulation on a heat sink with a sensor (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide the device of Coe, as modified, with the dust sensor of ‘265, in order to allow more precise control of dust removal.
Claims 6-7, 10, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coe in view of Bhopte (US 10,133,321).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15, Coe does not teach vibrational/acoustic control and does not specify temperature control.
Bhopte teaches that a variable speed cooling fan (Col. 5:27) may have flow rate controlled in dependence on at least an acoustic emission (i.e. the fan noise; Col. 5:25-30), per claims 6 and 15; in addition to being controlled based on temperature (col. 5:28-30), per claims 7 and 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Coe with the variable fan and control of Bhopte to reduce noise.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Coe does not discuss variable fan speeds.
Bhopte teaches that it is old and well-known to provide a heat sink system with a variable flow rate blower configured to move heat transfer medium over the heat transfer surface (234, 236); a computational model of an interaction of the heatsink and the heat exchange medium and a control configured to control the variable flow rate of the blower in dependence on the computation heat exchange model (Col. 6:49-51; the function correlating temperature to fan speed must inherently model the heat dissipation through the heat sink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Coe with the control of Bhopte in order to optimize energy usage during cooling.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coe in view of Boyd (US 2002/0001521).
Coe does not discuss turbulence or variable speed fans.
Boyd teaches that it is old and well-known that variable speed fans have inhomogenous (i.e. turbulent) flows and that the turbulence varies with speed (Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a variable speed fan in the device of Coe, in order to allow for more control over the airflow, and as taught by Boyd such fans inherently come with turbulence that varies with speed.
Claims 8 and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coe in view of Chiu (US 2007/0296071).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Coe does not specify a variable flow rate blower controlled in dependence on detected vibrations.
Chiu teaches that it is old and well-known to control a variable flow rate blower in dependence on detected vibrations (i.e. acoustic vibrations; noise; see Para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to control the device of Coe as taught by Chiu to reduce annoyance to an operator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights