DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 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.
In claim 1, lines 14-15, “along a degree of 65 degrees to 115 degrees of the cooling liquid flowing direction” is unintelligible.
In claim 1 “the second heat dissipating face” lacks antecedent basis. It is treated as if it read ‘the second heat dissipating surface’.
In claim 4, “the chip” lacks antecedent basis. It is unknowable what chip could be “the” chip. In order to allow meaningful interpretation of the claim, “the chip” is read as ‘the plurality of chips’ which has been defined.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected for depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sever (US 9,844,165).
Regarding claim 1, Sever teaches a liquid cooling heat dissipating plate (2) having sparsely and densely arranged pin fins (2f) arranged in a closed liquid cooling sink, comprising: a heat dissipating plate body (2) with a first heat dissipating surface (surface to which 4 is mounted; Fig. 1) for contacting a plurality of chips (4a) and a second heat dissipating surface (opposite surface of 2; Fig. 2) for contacting a cooling liquid (flowing from 2a to 2b); the surfaces are opposite each other (Figs. 1-2); and a plurality of pin fins (2f) are formed on the second surface; an angle between a chip arrangement direction and a cooling liquid flowing direction is between 65 and 115 degrees (see Fig. 2; it is 90 degrees), the plurality of pin fins are divided into sparse regions (2c; Fig. 2) with lower fin density and dense regions with higher fin density (regions of 2f; Fig. 2) which increases flow speed of the cooling liquid in the flow direction in the sparse regions.
Sever further teaches that: a fin total surface area per unit area of the sparse region is 0-20% of a fin total surface area of the dense region (Fig. 2; it is 0%), per claim 2; the width of the sparse region is 20-100% the projection width of the plurality of chips (see 4a in phantom overlaid in Fig. 3), per claim 4; the sparse and dense regions are distributed at up and downstream sides of the plurality of chips along the cooling liquid flowing direction (see Fig. 3), per claim 6; the plurality of chips are defined as a chip cluster by three or more chips arranged along the chip arrangement direction (see Fig. 2; vertical direction) and the up and downstream sides of a central chip are configured to have the sparse regions arranged thereon (see Fig. 3), per claim 7; the central chip is the middle chip of the three illustrated (see Fig. 3), per claim 8.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever.
Regarding claim 3, no criticality or unexpected results have been associated with the fin spacing in the applicant’s disclosure.
Sever does not specify fin spacing. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int he art at the time of filing to choose a fin spacing based on heat dissipation density, fluid dynamics considerations of the coolant, and other typical factors, including a spacing of 0.5 to 1.5 mm, as such considerations have been explicitly left to one of ordinary skill by Sever.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sever in view of Wu (US 2017/0280588).
Regarding claim 5, no criticality or unexpected results have been associated with the draft angle in the applicant’s disclosure. Sever does not discuss the formation method.
Wu teaches that it is old and well-known to form plates having pin fins (e.g. Fig. 1) via injection molding with a draft angle to the pin fins (Para. [0019]), the draft angle aiding in mold ejection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the fins of Sever via injection molding, as taught by Wu, as Sever has left such decisions to one of ordinary skill. Wu has furthermore left the selection of a specific draft angle to one of ordinary skill and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a draft angle based on mold extraction ease while minimizing loss of pin mass, including the recited range of 0-5 degrees.
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
