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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one stiffening element” in claim 2 and claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the instant case the stiffening element has been interpreted as structure on the base that may have a rib shaped configuration or a wave shaped configuration or may be around the circumference of the base element or may be in the form of the cooling elements as recited on page 3 the second paragraph through page 4 the fifth full paragraph of the originally filed specification
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 11 recite the broad recitation “the base element has an element height of at most 3 mm” and similar limitations in claim 11, and the claim also recites “in particular between 1 mm and 2.5 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-10 and 12-14 are rejected for their dependency from claims 1 and 11 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US 2001/0008703 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakata discloses (figure 1-4) a cooling device (heat sink 1) for cooling components, comprising a base element (substrate 3) having a first surface (the surface on which the projections 4 are disposed), and having a cooling structure which has cooling elements (projections 4 enable heat dissipation per paragraph 0058) and is arranged on the base element (3) so as to project beyond the first surface, wherein the cooling elements (4) comprise a sinter material and wherein the cooling elements (4) are produced by forming from the material of the base element (the main body 2 including the substrate 3 and projections 4 is formed of metal sintered compact per paragraph 0047), and wherein the base element (3) has an element height (the height of the substrate 3 as seen in figure 2 and 4).
However Sakata does not explicitly disclose the height of the base/substrate of at most 3 mm, in particular between 1 mm and 2.5 mm as Sakata is silent as to any specific height. Sakata discloses the diameter of the projections 4 is disclosed as 1.25 mm in paragraph 0123 which would appear to put the substrate height in the range claimed but since the drawings are not necessarily to scale Sakata does not explicitly disclose the height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Sakata to have the height of the base/substrate of at most 3 mm, in particular between 1 mm and 2.5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.IV A. In the instant case, the device of Sakata et al. would not operate differently with the claimed height and since the diameter of the projections 4 is disclosed as 1.25 mm in paragraph 0123 of Sakata the height of the substrate 3 would appear to be in a similar range to the height claimed, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed height. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the height is be within the claimed ranges but the specific range (per the first full paragraph of page 9 of the originally filed specification) but does not appear to have any criticality to the heat sink functioning.
Regarding claim 2, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above and Sakata further discloses at least one stiffening element (an individual one of the projections 4 or the frame 5 could form the stiffening element) is on the base element (3) in particular on the first surface.
Regarding claim 3, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (at frame 5) has a rib-shaped configuration (as seen in figure 1 and 2 the frame 5 extend in a rib like manner along the sides).
Regarding claim 4, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (at frame 5) is arranged continuously at the circumference of the base element (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element is arranged between the cooling elements (when the stiffening element is one of the projections 4, it would be between other projections).
Regarding claim 8, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (when the stiffening element is one of the projections 4) has a height which corresponds to between 20% and 100% of a maximum height of the cooling elements (when the stiffening element is one of the projections 4 it would have the height of the cooling elements at the other projections 4 ).
Regarding claim 9, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (an individual one of the projections 4 or the frame 5 could form the stiffening element) comprises a sinter material and is produced by forming from the material of the base element (the main body 2, including the substrate 3, the projections 4 and frame 5 is formed of metal sintered compact per paragraph 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 10, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (5) is arranged with a longitudinal extension in the direction of flow for a cooling fluid through the cooling device (as the direction of flow is not further defined it could be along any direction given the dynamic nature of fluid flow, such as in a direction along the walls of frame 5).
Regarding claim 11, Sakata discloses (figure 1-4) a method for producing a cooling device (heat sink 1) comprising the steps of providing a material and forming a cooling structure from the material, wherein a sintering powder is used as the material (the main body 2 is formed of metal sintered compact per paragraph 0047), from which a green compact is produced by pressing, wherein the green compact is sintered to form a preform (per paragraphs 0028 and 0075-0090), and the cooling structure is produced from the preform in the form of cooling elements (projections 4 enable heat dissipation per paragraph 0058) by forming, for which purpose a part of the preform is pressed through a mold, wherein a base element (substrate 3) is formed from the preform, on which base element the cooling elements (4) are configured (per paragraphs 0028 and 0075-0090), and wherein the base element (3) is produced with an element height (the height of the substrate 3 as seen in figure 2 and 4).
However Sakata does not explicitly disclose the height of the base/substrate of at most 3 mm, in particular between 1 mm and 2.5 mm as Sakata is silent as to any specific height. Sakata discloses the diameter of the projections 4 is disclosed as 1.25 mm in paragraph 0123 which would appear to put the substrate height in the range claimed but since the drawings are not necessarily to scale Sakata does not explicitly disclose the height.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Sakata to have the height of the base/substrate of at most 3 mm, in particular between 1 mm and 2.5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.IV A. In the instant case, the device of Sakata et al. would not operate differently with the claimed height and since the diameter of the projections 4 is disclosed as 1.25 mm in paragraph 0123 of Sakata the height of the substrate 3 would appear to be in a similar range to the height claimed, and the device would function appropriately having the claimed height. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the height is be within the claimed ranges but the specific range (per the first full paragraph of page 9 of the originally filed specification) but does not appear to have any criticality to the heat sink functioning.
Regarding claim 12, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 12 above and Sakata further discloses at least one stiffening element (an individual one of the projections 4 or the frame 5 could form the stiffening element) is configured on the base element (3) with the forming of the preform.
Regarding claim 13, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 12 above and Sakata further discloses the stiffening element (at frame 5) has a rib-shaped configuration (as seen in figure 1 and 2 the frame 5 extend in a rib like manner along the sides ).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US 2001/0008703 A1) and Zhou et al (US 2022/0053666 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2 above however while Sakata further discloses the projections 4 which can form the stiffening element may have any suitable shape/geometry per paragraph 0073, the shape is never explicitly disclosed as a wave-shaped configuration.
Zhou discloses (figure 4) a cooling device (at heat sink base layer 120 and fins 124) with cooling elements in the form of fins (fins 124) where the fins may have a wave shaped configuration (the fins may be wavy fins per paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the pin fins at projections 4 of Sakata to be the wavy fins disclosed by Zhou. Doing so would provide a known alternative fin structure to pin fins suitable for use in a cooling device/heat sink as recognized by Zhou (per paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 6 above and Zhou further discloses a plurality of wave-shaped stiffening elements forms the cooling elements (fins 124, which are for thermal transfer, may be wave shaped per paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 14, Sakata as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 12 above however while Sakata further discloses the projections 4 which can form the stiffening element may have any suitable shape/geometry per paragraph 0073, the shape is never explicitly disclosed as a wave-shaped configuration.
Zhou discloses (figure 4) a cooling device (at heat sink base layer 120 and fins 124) with cooling elements in the form of fins (fins 124) where the fins may have a wave shaped configuration (the fins may be wavy fins per paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the pin fins at projections 4 of Sakata to be the wavy fins disclosed by Zhou. Doing so would provide a known alternative fin structure to pin fins suitable for use in a cooling device/heat sink as recognized by Zhou (per paragraph 0029).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klausner et al. (US 20220373273 A1), Lim et al. (US 20030039571 A1), Ishikawa et al. (US 6933531 B1), Mawatari et al. (US 6139975 A), Polese et al. (US 5972737 A), Polese et al. (US 5878322 A). All disclose sintered heat sink structures which could at least read on independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights