Email Communication
Internet communication authorization acknowledged and recorded.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/21/2025 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following lack of antecedent informalities:
● In Claim 12, Line 1, “the housing” is changed to read - - a housing - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or Applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 1, 5, 10 and 16, The limiting term "approximately" in Claims 1, 5. 10 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term "approximately " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggest that the phrase “approximately” be excluded from the claims language. See; MPEP 2163.05(b)(III).
With respect to Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15 and 16-20, Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15 and 16-20 are derived from rejected base Claims 1 and 10, and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-7 and 10, 13-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiura (US 2010/0162091).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) discloses a device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3),comprising:
a first end (14) in contact with a first power electronics device (16), (Fig 10(B));
a second end (15) in contact with a second power electronics device (16), (Fig 10(B));
a length (length spanning between 14 and 15) spanning between the first end (14) and the second end (15), (Fig 10(B));
a first fin (12); and
a second fin (12); wherein:
a cooling fluid (coolant, ¶ 13, II. 1-3) is configured to enter the device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) at the first end (14), (Fig 10(B)),
the first fin (12) is located at the first end (14),
the second fin (12) is located at the second end (15), and
the cooling fluid (coolant, ¶ 13, II. 1-3) is configured to cool the first power electronics device (16) and the second power electronics device (16) to approximately the same temperature by flowing through the device (¶ 15, II. 1-4), (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses the device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) further comprising: a third fin (12); wherein: the third fin (12) is located at the second end (12), (Fig 10(A)).
Regarding Claim 3, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the first fin (12) spans the length (length spanning between 14 and 15), (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 4, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 3, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the first fin (12) has a first height at the first end (14) and a second height at the second end (15), (Fig 10(B)), and the first height is less than the second height (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) comprises a substantially conductive material (¶ 42, II. 1-9).
Regarding Claim 7, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises at least one of aluminum, silver, copper, gold, zinc, nickel, iron, or platinum (¶ 42, II. 1-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) discloses a method comprising:
forming a heat sink device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3); wherein:
the heat sink device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) comprises:
a first end (14) in contact with a first power electronics device (16);
a second end (15) in contact with a second power electronics device (Fig 10(B));
a length (length spanning between 14 and 15) spanning between the first end (14) and the second end (15), (Fig 10(B));
a first fin (12); and
a second fin (12), (Fig 10(B)); wherein:
a cooling fluid (coolant, ¶ 13, II. 1-3) is configured to enter the device at the first end (14), and
the first fin (12) is located at the first end (14), (Fig 10(B)),
the second fin (12) is located at the second end (15), and
the cooling fluid (coolant, ¶ 13, II. 1-3) is configured to cool the first power electronics (16) device and the second power electronics (16) device to approximately the same temperature by flowing through the heat sink device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3), (¶ 15, II. 1-4), (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 13, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses the heat sink device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) further comprising: a third fin (12); wherein: the third fin (12) is located at the second end (12), (Fig 10(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the first fin (12) spans the length (length spanning between 14 and 15), (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 15, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 14, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the first fin (12) has a first height at the first end (14) and a second height at the second end (15), (Fig 10(B)), and the first height is less than the second height (Fig 10(B)).
Regarding Claim 17, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the heat sink device (cooling apparatus, ¶ 8, II. 1-3) comprises a substantially conductive material (¶ 42, II. 1-9).
Regarding Claim 18, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 17, however Nishiura (In Figs 10(A)-10(B)) further discloses wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises at least one of aluminum, silver, copper, gold, zinc, nickel, iron, or platinum (¶ 42, II. 1-9).
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 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiura.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 4, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the first height is in the range of approximately 0.1 mm to approximately 100.0 mm. however,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the first height being in a range of 0.1 mm to 100 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 15, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the first height is in the range of approximately 0.1 mm to approximately 100.0 mm. however,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the first height being in a range of 0.1 mm to 100 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiura in view of Lambert et al (US 2024/0179874).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises brass or bronze.
Instead, Lambert (In Fig 2A) teaches wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises brass or bronze (¶ 73, II.1-5).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Lamber with the substantially conductive material comprising brass or bronze to benefit from providing an improved heat sink assembly which is less likely to be damaged with improved thermal dissipation (Lambert ¶ 14, II. 1-9).
Regarding Claim 19, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 17, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises brass or bronze.
Instead, Lambert (In Fig 2A) teaches wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises brass or bronze (¶ 73, II.1-5).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Lamber with the substantially conductive material comprising brass or bronze to benefit from providing an improved heat sink assembly which is less likely to be damaged with improved thermal dissipation (Lambert ¶ 14, II. 1-9).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiura in view of Sakata et al (US 2018/0024599).
Regarding Claim 9, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises a ceramic material.
Instead, Sakata (In Fig 1) teaches wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises a ceramic material (¶ 96, II. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Sakata with the substantially conductive material comprising a ceramic material to benefit from high thermal conductivity with strong electrical insulation.
Regarding Claim 20, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 17, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises a ceramic material.
Instead, Sakata (In Fig 1) teaches wherein: the substantially conductive material comprises a ceramic material (¶ 96, II. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Sakata with the substantially conductive material comprising a ceramic material to benefit from high thermal conductivity with strong electrical insulation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiura in view of Dasgupta et al (US 2020/0080796).
Regarding Claim 11, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the forming comprises extruding the heat sink device using additive manufacturing.
Instead, Dasgupta (In Fig 1) teaches wherein: the forming comprises extruding the heat sink device using additive manufacturing (¶ 5, II. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Dasgupta with the forming comprising extruding the heat sink device using additive manufacturing to benefit from smaller tolerances that additive manufacturing provide providing higher Fin densities (Dasgupta, ¶ 39, II. 1-13).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nashiura in view of Tsai et al (US 2016/0309619).
Regarding Claim 12, Nishiura discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Nishiura does not disclose wherein: the forming comprises milling within the housing to form the first fin and the second fin.
Instead, Tsai (In Fig 7) teaches wherein: the forming comprises milling within the housing to form the first fin (211) and the second fin (211), (¶ 39, II. 8-11).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Nishiura with Tsai with the forming comprises milling within the housing to form the first fin and the second fin to benefit from fast, versatile and highly accurate way to shape the fins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; Heat Sink Assembly Apparatus US 2014/0311725, Progressive Heatsink US 11,937,403, Heat Exchanger, Semiconductor Device, Method for Manufacturing the Heat Exchanger, and Method for Manufacturing the Semiconductor Device US 2012/0014066, Coolant-Cooled Heat Sink Configured for Accelerating Coolant Flow US 2015/0107801, Liquid-Cooling Heat Dissipation Plate with Unequal Height Pin-Fins and Enclosed Liquid-Cooling Cooler Having the Same US 2024/0224464. 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 866-216-9197 (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