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 C/Group I in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5, 8, 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species/Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LIN US 20220316822 A1.
Re claim 1, LIN teach a heat exchange fin pack comprising: a plurality of rows of channel sections, each row comprising: a plurality of adjacent legs (911,), with each pair of adjacent legs connected to each other by, alternately, an upper crest part and a lower peak part (912, 913), the legs and the upper crest part or the lower peak part defining, therebetween a channel section for fluid flow therethrough (fig 16); and wherein the channel sections of each row are offset in a direction substantially transverse to the direction of flow from the adjacent channel sections of adjacent rows, to form a lanced offset fin pack in which the channel sections of adjacent rows combine to form staggered flow channels (fig 16); and wherein each channel section has a region of restricted diameter compared to another or other regions of that channel section (noting the inlet/outlet of each channel naturally has a restricted diameter since the alternating, since a staggered fin pack with not have a constant open diameter to airflow, since the staggering blocks adjacent open diameters to from the staggered flow channels; also noting the diameter of a channel being open is what makes a channel open for airflow and therefore the beginning and end of each staggered channel is considered to be restricted by another adjacent channel leg )
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘restricted’ is
having a set limit or : subject or subjected to restriction: such as
a
: not general : limited.
Re claim 6, LIN teach formed by additive manufacture.
The recitation of “formed by additive manufacture” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. 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.”
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of IWASAKI US 20160069623 A1.
Re claim 2, LIN fail to explicitly teach diverges from a first relatively wide end.
IWASAKI teach where each channel section has a shape that, in the direction of flow, diverges from a first relatively wide end to a narrower intermediate region and then converges to a second relatively wide end (noting 25 tab constriction cross sections area to create a relatively more narrower middle section due to the tab) to add tabs to the flow channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diverges from a first relatively wide end as taught by IWASAKI in the LIN invention in order to advantageously allow for turbulent airflow to increase heat exchange.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of IWASAKI US 20160069623 A1 and EMMONS US 2133502 A.
Re claim 3, LIN, as modified, fail to explicitly teach an elliptical cross-section.
EMMONS teach wherein the upper crest parts and the lower peak parts have an elliptical cross-section (fig 5) to provide upper and lower curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an elliptical cross-section as taught by EMMONS in the LIN, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for radiator cooling applications and varied fin pack manufacture ability.
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of CHEN US 20100018669 A1 and/or CHEN in view of LIN .
Re claim 7, LIN fail to explicitly teach a base plate.
CHEN teach a base plate (10); wherein the plurality of rows (20) are integral with the base plate to attach a heat sink to base plate (fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a base plate as taught by CHEN in the LIN invention in order to advantageously allow for excess heat dissipation in an electronic device .
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide are integral with the base, since such a modification would have involved making separate part integral. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include are integral with the base , since making parts integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section V, part B.
Additionally, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. Therefore, it would be obvious to make integral.
Re claim 9, CHEN teach a heat sink comprising: a heat sink plate (10); and a heat exchange fin pack (20) in thermal contact with the heat sink plate (fig 1).
CHEN fail to explicitly teach a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1.
LIN teach a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1) to provide turbulent channel flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1 as taught by LIN in the CHEN invention in order to advantageously allow for excess heat dissipation in an electronic device .
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tomioka US 20020186532 A1 in view of LIN .
Re claim 10, Tomioka teach a heat exchanger comprising: an upper layer ; a lower layer (annotated fig); and a heat exchange fin pack (27) mounted between the upper and lower layer (fig 14).
Tomioka fail to explicitly teach a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1.
LIN teach a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1) to provide turbulent channel flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a heat exchange fin pack as claimed in claim 1 as taught by LIN in the Tomioka invention in order to advantageously allow for excess heat dissipation in an electronic device .
PNG
media_image1.png
474
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20060124278 A1, US 5625229 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights