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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are generally blurry and of low quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 18/21, the recitation “a piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet” is considered a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, no “piezoelectric control device” or the like is claimed, but rather the intended working medium “a piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet.”
Regarding claims 9-10, 20, the recitation "formed by additive manufacturing"/”formed by three-dimensional printing” are considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes."
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 12-13 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “the fins define a fluid flow path through the heatsink base” is unclear. Specifically, the fins extend from the heatsink base (see claim 1), and thus it is unclear how the fins define a flow path though the base, from which they extend. This ambiguity is not resolved by interpreting the claim in light of the specification, which provides no explanation or figures to this effect. Claim 13 is rejected for its dependency.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “the microblower comprises piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet” is unclear. First the phrase “piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet” lacks an article. Further, it is unclear how the microblower comprises a jet. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the microblower configured to produce a piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet.
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) 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Maxik (US20120285667A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maxik discloses a device (see Fig. 1-7) for impingement cooling comprising: a heatsink base (see base of heatsink 30); fins (fins 32) extending from the heatsink base, wherein the fins are arranged to form a spiral (see spiral fins of Fig. 2/2C)
Regarding claim 2, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Maxik further discloses the fins (32) define a fluid flow path (via gaps 34) through the device.
Regarding claim 3, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Maxik further discloses a size, density, and position of the fins (see size, density, and position of fins 32) defines the resultant fluid flow path (via gaps 34).
Regarding claim 8, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Maxik further discloses: formed from one selected from a conductive material (heatsink & ¶[0083-0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Maxik discloses a system (see Fig. 1-7) for impingement cooling comprising: a microblower (micro-blower 50); a heatsink comprising: a heatsink base (see base of heatsink 30); fins (fins 32) extending from the heatsink base, wherein the fins are arranged to form a spiral (see spiral fins of Fig. 2/2C).
Regarding claim 12, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Maxik further discloses the fins (32) define a fluid flow path (via gaps 34) through the heatsink base.
Regarding claim 13, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 12, and Maxik further discloses a size, density, and position (see size, density, and position of fins 32) of the fins defines the resultant fluid flow path (via gaps 34).
Regarding claim 18, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Maxik further discloses the microblower comprises piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet (jet 60 via piezoelectric diaphragm 56).
Regarding claim 19, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Maxik further discloses the system formed from a conductive material (heatsink & ¶[0083-0084]).
Regarding claim 21, Maxik discloses a system (see Fig. 1-7) for impingement cooling comprising: a piezoelectrically controlled synthetic jet (flow generator 50 & piezoelectric - ¶[0057]); a heatsink comprising: a base (base of heatsink 30); a fluid flow path (via gaps 34) defining structure (fins 32) disposed on the base.
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) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik (US20120285667A1) in view of Suzuki (US5640046A).
Regarding claim 4/14, Maxik discloses the limitations of claim 1/11, and Maxik does not teach an angular cap positioned on a top surface of the fins.
Suzuki teaches (Fig. 6-7) an angular cap (cover 30) positioned on a top surface of the fins (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maxik to include the cap of Suzuki, in order to ensure the fins are cooled effectively (Col. 4, lines 45-63).
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik (US20120285667A1) in view of Kaga (JP2001102508A).
Regarding claims 5-6/15-16 Maxik teaches the limitations of claims 1/11, and Maxik does not teach first fins having a first size and second fins having a second size wherein the first fins are larger in size than the second fins, wherein the second fins are positioned closer to an outer wall of the device.
Kaga teaches (see Fig. 11) first fins (4a) having a first size and second fins (4b) having a second size wherein the first fins are larger in size than the second fins, wherein the second fins are positioned closer to an outer wall of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maxik to include the first and second fins of Kaga, in order to improve cooling performance (Page 7).
Claim(s) 7, 9-10, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik (US20120285667A1) in view of Binek (US20230294175A1).
Regarding claim 7/17, Maxik teaches the limitations of claim 1/11, and Maxik does not teach wherein the fins further comprise a layered configuration.
Binek teaches wherein the fins further comprise a layered configuration (“wherein the fins further comprise a layered configuration” - ¶[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maxik to include the layered configuration of Binek, in order to reliably produce the fins via additively manufacturing (¶[0027]).
Regarding claims 9-10/20, Maxik teaches the limitations of claims 1/11, and Maxik does not teach wherein the device is formed by additive manufacturing, the device is formed by three-dimensional printing.
Binek teaches wherein the device is formed by additive manufacturing, the device is formed by three-dimensional printing (¶[0027-0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maxik to include the additive manufacturing/3D printing of Binek, in order to reliably produce the fins via additively manufacturing (¶[0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
