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
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/14/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 9/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventive entity is a technical feature over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the inventive entity is not a technical feature over the prior art alone or in combination with obviousness rationale (see detailed rejection below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 18-22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’699 CN 107452699 A, as cited on the IDS and/or in view of Hanaki US 4,746,479.
Re claim 18, CN’699 teach a heat sink, comprising: a main body made from a thermoplastic resin and including a first outer surface and a second outer surface lying opposite the first outer surface; a main cooling channel (12) formed in the main body and extending from the first outer surface of the main body to the second outer surface of the main body, said main cooling channel being closed on at least one of the first and second outer surfaces of the main body; and an auxiliary cooling channel (13) formed in the main body by friction stir channeling such as to connect to the main cooling channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the main body of made from a thermoplastic resin for desirable heat transfer and manufacturing ability, 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, Hanaki teach to form the main body of made from a thermoplastic resin for desirable heat transfer (col 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the main body of made from a thermoplastic resin for desirable heat transfer and manufacturing ability, 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 matter of obvious design choice in view of the teachings of Hanaki. See MPEP 2144.07.
The recitation of “formed in the main body by friction stir channeling” 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.”
Re claim 19, CN’699 teach further comprising a plurality of said main cooling channel (12, 13) in parallel relation to one another and extending from the first outer surface to the second outer surface of the main body (figs, Noting three dimensional objects naturally take space/ make up a volume and extend in all directs in x,y z planes ).
Re claim 20, CN’699 teach wherein the main cooling channel is closed on at least one of the first and second outer surfaces of the main body by friction stir welding (top and bottom of flat case is closed off).
The recitation of “by friction stir channeling” 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.”
Re claim 21, CN’699 teach wherein the main body is produced by extrusion.
The recitation of “is produced by extrusion” 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.”
Re claim 22, CN’699 teach wherein the main body is made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a polyamide, polylactate, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyether ether ketone or polyvinyl chloride.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the main body of made from a acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a polyamide, polylactate, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyether ether ketone or polyvinyl chloride for desirable heat transfer and manufacturing ability, 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 matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 26, CN’699 teach An electronic assembly (title, also “IGBT” throughout specification), comprising the heat sink of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’699 CN 107452699 A, and/or in view of Hanaki in view of FR ‘407 FR 2914407.
Re claim 23, CN’699(or in view of Hanaki) fail to teach different cross-sections.
FR ‘407 teach wherein at least two of the main cooling channels have different cross-sections from one another to adjust for heat change in the middle parallel channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include different cross-sections as taught by FR ‘407 in the CN’699 invention in order to advantageously allow for ideal pressure and fluid flow in the inlet and outlets.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’699 CN 107452699 A, as cited on the IDS and/or in view of Hanaki and DE ‘113 DE 10 2020 005 113 A1.
Re claim 24, CN’699 (or in view of Hanaki) fail to teach different cross-sections.
DE ‘113 teach further comprising a plurality of said auxiliary cooling channel (11, 12, 14, 16, 17, fig 2), with at least two of the auxiliary cooling channels having different cross-sections from one another to form different joining zones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include different cross-sections as taught by DE ‘113 in the CN’699 invention in order to advantageously allow for multiple joining processes to make sealed channels.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’699 CN 107452699 A and/or in view of Hanaki and DE ‘113 further in view of BORTOLATO EP 3 723 463 A1.
Re claim 25, CN’699, as modified, (and/or in view of Hanaki) fail to teach a heat pipe.
BORTOLATO teach wherein at least part of the main cooling channels and the auxiliary cooling channels forms channels of a pulsating heat pipe (para 15) to add a condenser to the evaporator section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a heat pipe as taught by BORTOLATO in the CN’699, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for wickless heat removal from a evaporator and condenser portion.
Conclusion
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