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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “a working fluid” in i.e. Fig.’s 2, and 6-7 is shown without any structure to define, hold or contain the working fluid. 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 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.
Claims 13-18, are 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. Regarding Claim(s) 13-18; respectively asserts “the device is an immersion-type heat dissipation device” or “the device is an immersion boiler” or “the device is an immersion radiator” or “the device is an immersion-type heat dissipation device” are each unclear; whereas it cannot be readily ascertained if and how the device is deemed to include or separately couple by or constitute immersion or be immersed so as to accomplish an immersion device i.e. using working fluid-L-as depicted by Fig.’s 2, and 6-7 without any structure to define, hold or contain the working fluid.
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, 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) 1, 4-8, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Kang 20230284414).
Regarding Claim 1; Kang discloses a device (as depicted by Fig. 3--whereas 1 is a device defining a heat exchanger—as set forth by para.’s 0003 and 0022) comprising: a heat conductor comprising a base portion and a plurality of fin portions, the base portion having a heat receiving surface and a heat dissipating surface opposite to the heat receiving surface, the heat receiving surface configured to be thermally coupled to at least one heat source (whereas a heat conductor is constituted by a base-14 and fins-15 extending from a heat dissipating surface thereof generally presented as 16 which opposite to a heat receiving surface coupled to a computer processor-3--as further depicted by Fig. 2), and the fin portions protruding from the heat dissipating surface of the base portion (as already set forth); and a boiling enhancement layer arranged on at least part of the heat dissipating surface of the base portion and at least part of the fin portions (whereas 15 atleast in-part comprises boiling enhancement features to promote and enhance boiling of the working fluid, for example through sintered metal powder coating, blind holes, and/or reentrant cavities—as set forth by para. 0023), wherein the boiling enhancement layer comprises at least one first metal portion (whereas atleast one construction comprises one first metal portion of 15 is constituted by aluminum or copper sintered metal power coating and reentrant cavities—as set forth by para. 0023) and at least one second metal portion (whereas atleast one second metal portion of 15 is constituted by aluminum or copper blind hole—as set forth by para. 0023), and suggests a first surface area portion of the at least one first metal portion being greater than a second surface area portion of the at least one second metal portion (whereas atleast in one construction when the depth and diameter is the same then a reentrant cavity constitutes a greater surface area than a blind hole by virtue of the reentrant inward step defining an increased surface area relative to the blind hole). Except, Tavassoli does not explicitly disclose the first surface area portion of the at least one first metal portion being greater than a second surface area portion of the at least one second metal portion. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify each of the reentrant cavity and the blind as comprising the same depth and diameter atleast in-part in accordance with a desired mechanical strength of the fin, since such a modification 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base portion of the heat conductor comprises a metal plate, a vapor chamber, or a combination thereof (as set forth by para. 0023--whereas the aluminum or copper fins 15 is unitary with the base 14 and constitutes a metal plate or whereas 21 is a chamber defining the fins which promote and enhance boiling so as to constitute a vapor chamber).
Regarding Claim 5; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base portion of the heat conductor is joined to the fin portions by integral forming (as set forth by para. 0023--whereas the aluminum or copper fins 15 is unitary with the base 14).
Regarding Claim 6; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the boiling enhancement layer comprises a powder sintered structure (whereas para. 0023 discloses the fins include boiling enhancement features which may include sintered metal powder coating).
Regarding Claim 7; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, except, explicitly wherein the at least one first metal portion and the at least one second metal portion are manufactured by sintering. However, ‘**sintered metal powder sintering at para. 0023**’ constitutes a method of manufacture and is not structurally distinguished from the prior art. (In re Johnson, 157 USPQ 670, 1968; In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985; See MPEP 2113—Product by Process Claims). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made that the disclosed structure of the prior art is a fully functional equivalent to the claimed structure as evidenced by meeting all of the claimed structural limitations thereof.
Regarding Claim 8; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the material of the at least one first metal portion and the at least one second metal portion is selected from the group consisting of copper (copper—as set forth by para. 0023), except, explicitly disclosing the copper is pure cooper, and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the copper as pure copper so as to provide superior conductivity and malleability without impurities, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 11; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, and suggests wherein the boiling enhancement layer is arranged on all of the heat dissipating surface of the base portion and all of the fin portions (as constituted by the sintered metal power coating on the fins-15—as set forth by para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 12; Kang discloses a device (as depicted by Fig. 3--whereas 1 is a device defining a heat exchanger—as set forth by para.’s 0003 and 0022) comprising: a heat conductor comprising a base portion, the base portion having a heat receiving surface and a heat dissipating surface opposite the heat receiving surface, the heat receiving surface configured to be thermally coupled to at least one heat source (whereas a heat conductor is constituted by a base-14 and fins-15 extending from a heat dissipating surface thereof generally presented as 16 which opposite to a heat receiving surface coupled to a computer processor-3--as further depicted by Fig. 2); and a boiling enhancement layer, arranged on at least part of the heat dissipating surface of the base portion (whereas 15 atleast in-part comprises boiling enhancement features to promote and enhance boiling of the working fluid, for example through sintered metal powder coating, blind holes, and/or reentrant cavities—as set forth by para. 0023), wherein the boiling enhancement layer comprises at least one first metal portion (whereas atleast one first metal portion of 15 is constituted by aluminum or copper sintered metal power coating and reentrant cavities—as set forth by para. 0023) and at least one second metal portion (whereas atleast one second metal portion of 15 is constituted by aluminum or copper blind hole—as set forth by para. 0023), and suggests a first surface area portion of the at least one first metal portion being greater than a second surface area portion of the at least one second metal portion (whereas atleast in one construction when the depth and diameter is the same then a reentrant cavity constitutes a greater surface area than a blind hole by virtue of the reentrant inward step defining an increased surface area relative to the blind hole). Except, Tavassoli does not explicitly disclose the first surface area portion of the at least one first metal portion being greater than a second surface area portion of the at least one second metal portion. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify each of the reentrant cavity and the blind as comprising the same depth and diameter atleast in-part in accordance with a desired mechanical strength of the fin, since such a modification 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Kang 20230284414) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of (Miyahara 2010/0202112).
Regarding Claim 9; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, except, explicitly wherein the at least one first metal portion comprises at least one side portion extending from a bottom of the fin portions to a top of the fin portions, the at least one side portion progressively increasing in thickness from the bottom toward the top. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as disclosed by Miyahara -Fig.’s 2A or 2B and para. 0019 to modify sides of the fins progressively increasing in thickness from a bottom toward the top, as asserted since it was known in the art that the fins gradually become thinner, wherein a larger thickness at proximal portion of the fins will enhance heat absorbing capacity from the metal plate, and the distal portion of the fins are thinner so as to efficiently release heat.
Regarding Claim 10; Kang discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, except, explicitly wherein the fin portions progressively decrease in width from a bottom of the fin portions toward a top of the fin portions. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as disclosed by Miyahara -Fig.’s 2A or 2B and para. 0019 to modify sides of the fins progressively increasing in thickness from a bottom toward the top, as asserted since it was known in the art that the fins gradually become thinner, wherein a larger thickness at proximal portion of the fins will enhance heat absorbing capacity from the metal plate, and the distal portion of the fins are thinner so as to efficiently release heat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 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.
Regarding Claim 2; the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat receiving surface of the base portion is differentiated into at least one main heat zone and at least one secondary heat zone, the at least one main heat zone of the at least one heat receiving surface being configured to be thermally coupled to the heat source, and the at least one first metal portion and the at least one second metal portion corresponds to the at least one main heat zone and the at least one secondary heat zone, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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 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 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights