Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8, “wherein an outlet port of provided…” should read –wherein an outlet port provided…--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR 20140007029A, machine translation attached in previous OA) in view of Ha (KR 102462393B1, machine translation attached in previous OA) and Lee (KR 20150081516, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Shin discloses:
a heat sink assembly (figs. 1-4) [abstract] comprising:
a first heat sink having a plurality of ribs (114) integrally molded along a length direction of the first heat sink by extrusion molding inside the first heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3) [par. 0040-0041], and a second heat sink having a plurality of ribs (114) integrally molded along a length direction of the second heat sink by extrusion molding inside the second heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3) [par. 0040-0046],
spaces between the ribs (114) of the first and the second heat sinks forming a flow path (116) through which a coolant flows [par. 0045] (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, below),
first and second surfaces of the first heat sink and of the second heat sink at both ends of the respective length direction being open (see annotated fig. 2-SHIN, below), and the first and second heat sinks each having a communication port (at 122a) on one side wall adjacent to the second surface of the respective heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, below),
wherein the first and second heat sinks are integrally formed [par. 0041] so that the communication ports (at 122a) of the first heat sink and the second heat sink align (at 122a) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, below),
PNG
media_image1.png
382
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
459
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the ribs (114) of the first and second heat sinks have a length such that both ends thereof are spaced apart from the first and second surfaces of the respective heat sink by a predetermined distance (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3), and
the open first and second surfaces of both ends of the first and second heat sinks are closed by end plugs (120b, 120a) inserted into the first surface and the second surface of the respective heat sink and spaced apart from ends of the respective ribs (114) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3),
The recitation "the first and second heat sinks are integrally formed by forming a bonding surface" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). 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 process." In this instance, the product taught by Shin is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Further, integrally manufacturing multiple heat sinks by forming a bonding surface and having a seam joining the multiple heat sinks is old and known in the art, as taught by Ha. Ha, also directed to a heat sink assembly (figs. 5-6) [abstract] comprising: a first heat sink (300) having a plurality of ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) integrally molded along a length direction of the first heat sink (300) by extrusion molding inside the first heat sink [par. 0053 and 0058], and a second heat sink (400) having a plurality of ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) integrally molded along a length direction of the second heat sink (400) by extrusion molding inside the second heat sink [par. 0053 and 0060], and spaces between the ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) of the first (300) and the second (400) heat sinks forming a flow path (320/420) through which a coolant flows [par. 0058-0060], teaches the first (300) and second (400) heat sinks being integrally formed by forming a bonding surface and having a seam joining the first (300) and second (400) heat sinks (figs. 5-6) [“stir welding” par. 0057 and 0061. It is known in the art that stir welding two plates produces a seam joining the plates].
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the manufacturing process of Ha into Shin should the first and second heat sinks were separate bodies, as a matter of an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding the limitation
“wherein the second heat sink comprises a second communication port on a side wall adjacent to the first surface of the second heat sink, the heat sink assembly further comprises:
a third heat sink, wherein the third heat sink comprises a plurality of ribs integrally molded along a length direction of the third heat sink by extrusion molding inside the third heat sink, a space between the ribs forming a flow path for the coolant to flow, first and second surfaces of the third heat sink at both ends of the length direction being open, the third heat sink having a communication port on one side wall adjacent to the first surface of the third heat sink,
wherein the second and third heat sinks are integrally formed of the side walls by forming a bonding surface between the second and third heat sinks so that the communication ports of the second and third heat sinks align, and
wherein the ribs of the third heat sink have a length such that both ends thereof are spaced apart from the first and second surfaces of the third heat sink by a predetermined distance, and
the open first and second surfaces of both ends of the third heat sink are closed by end plugs inserted therein and spaced apart from the ends of the ribs of the third heat sink,”
it is noted that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B. In this case, duplicating one or more of the heat sinks (i.e. adding a third heat sink) implies to have an extra (second) communication port between the second heat sink and the added third heat sink which, in order to keep a proper flow of coolant between the second and third heat sinks, would be arranged on a side wall adjacent to the first surface of the second heat sink as it would be obvious to one of skill in the art and as it is old and known in the art, as taught by Lee (in Lee, heat sink assembly 2 of fig. 11 is an obvious variation of heat sink assembly 1 of fig. 9 where, by duplicating one or more of the heat sinks of fig. 9, a second communication port between the second and third heat sink assemblies is arranged on a side wall adjacent to the first surface of the second heat sink and on one side wall adjacent to the first surface of the added third heat sink, as seen in annotated fig. 11-LEE, page 6). Also, in this case, duplicating one or more of the heat sinks implies to have the third heat sink comprising a plurality of ribs integrally molded along a length direction of the third heat sink by extrusion molding inside the third heat sink (just as in the first and second heat sinks), wherein the second and third heat sinks comprising the same features as the first and second heat sinks of the heat sink assembly of claim 1 regarding the ribs, the space between ribs, the side walls and the open first and second surfaces, will further enhance heat transfer according to the user’s needs, and would be a matter of an obvious design choice that wouldn’t require inventive skills, based on the combination of Shin and Ha, and the teachings of Lee.
PNG
media_image3.png
878
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Shin’s discloses, as it applies to claim 8, above:
each of the first surface and the second surface of each of the first, second, and third heat sinks being closed with one end plug (duplicated plugs 120b, 120a), and
both ends of the side walls of the first, second, and third heat sinks forming the respective bonding surfaces being formed with a cutaway part corresponding to a depth at which the respective end plug (120b, 120a) is inserted (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3, as it applies to duplicated heat sinks).
Regarding claim 10, Shin discloses, as it applies to claim 8, above:
one of the first or third heat sinks being provided with an inlet port (119/130) communicating with the respective flow path (116), while the other of the first or third heat sinks is provided with an outlet port (119/130) communicating with the respective flow path (116) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3, as it applies to duplicated heat sinks).
Regarding claim 11, Shin discloses, as it applies to claim 8, above:
one of the inlet port (119/130) and outlet port (119/130) being located in a space between the end plug (120b, 120a) on the respective first surface and a rib (114), and the other is located in a space between the end plug (120b, 120a) on the respective second surface and a rib (114) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3, as it applies to duplicated heat sinks).
Regarding claim 12, Shin discloses:
the inlet port (119/130) and the outlet port (119/130) being each located diagonally with respect to the communication port (at 122a) (seen in annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3).
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B. In this case, duplicating one or more of the heat sinks, wherein
an Nth heat sink (wherein N is a natural number of 3 or more) and an (N+1)th heat sink are integrally formed by forming a bonding surface in a way that the communication ports of the Nth heat sink and the (N+1)th heat sink align, and
open first and second surfaces of both ends of the (N+1)th heat sink are closed by end plugs inserted into the respective first surface and the respective second surface and spaced apart from the ends of the ribs formed along the length direction,
will further enhance heat transfer according to the user’s needs, and would be a matter of an obvious design choice that wouldn’t require inventive skills, based on Shin’s disclosure and the teachings of Lee.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Ha, as it applies to claims 8-13 and 17, above, and further in view of Crosatti et al. (US 2023/0398904, herein “Crosatti”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Shin and Ha does not disclose:
the inlet port and outlet port being located diagonally with respect to each other.
The arrangement of coolant inlet and outlet ports with respect to each other in plate-type heat sink is considered to be an obvious design choice, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design or arrange the coolant inlet port in the same end of a heat sink exchanger plate, or in direct opposite ends of the heat sink plate, or in opposite ends of the heat sink plate diagonally to each other to provide an optimal heat transfer according to the user’s needs. Further, heat sink assemblies comprising inlet and outlet ports arranged diagonally with respect to each other are old and known in the art. Crosatti, for instance, also directed to a heat sink assembly (215) (figs. 1-4) teaches coolant inlet (300) and outlet (305) ports arranged in the same end of a heat sink plate (215) (fig. 3) as an obvious variation of the coolant inlet (300) and the coolant outlet (305) ports arranged in opposite ends of the heat sink plate diagonally to each other (fig. 5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Ha.
Regarding claim 17, Shin discloses:
a heat sink module (100) (figs. 1-3B) including
a first heat sink having a plurality of ribs (114) integrally molded along a length direction of the first heat sink by extrusion molding inside the first heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3) [par. 0040-0041], and a second heat sink having a plurality of ribs (114) integrally molded along a length direction of the second heat sink by extrusion molding inside the second heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3) [par. 0040-0046],
spaces between the ribs (114) of the first and the second heat sinks forming a flow path (116) through which a coolant flows [par. 0045] (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3),
first and second surfaces of the first heat sink and of the second heat sink at both ends of the respective length direction being open (see annotated fig. 2-SHIN, page 3), and the first and second heat sinks each having a communication port (at 122a) on one side wall adjacent to the second surface of the respective heat sink (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3),
wherein the first and second heat sinks are integrally formed [par. 0041] so that the communication ports (at 122a) of the first heat sink and the second heat sink align (at 122a) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3),
the ribs (114) of the first and second heat sinks have a length such that both ends thereof are spaced apart from the first and second surfaces of the respective heat sink by a predetermined distance (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3), and
the open first and second surfaces of both ends of the first and second heat sinks are closed by end plugs (120b, 120a) inserted into the first surface and the second surface of the respective heat sink and spaced apart from ends of the respective ribs (114) (see annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page 3).
wherein one of the first or second heat sinks comprises an inlet port (119/130) communicating with the flow path (116), while the other heat sink comprising an outlet port (119/130) communicating with the flow path (116) (see annotated fig. 2-SHIN, page 3, as it applies to annotated fig. 3-SHIN, page 3) [par. 0038].
The recitation "the first and second heat sinks are integrally formed by forming a bonding surface" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). 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 process." In this instance, the product taught by Shin is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Further, integrally manufacturing multiple heat sinks by forming a bonding surface and having a seam joining the multiple heat sinks is old and known in the art, as taught by Ha. Ha, also directed to a heat sink assembly (figs. 5-6) [abstract] comprising: a first heat sink (300) having a plurality of ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) integrally molded along a length direction of the first heat sink (300) by extrusion molding inside the first heat sink [par. 0053 and 0058], and a second heat sink (400) having a plurality of ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) integrally molded along a length direction of the second heat sink (400) by extrusion molding inside the second heat sink [par. 0053 and 0060], and spaces between the ribs (dotted lines, figs. 5-6) of the first (300) and the second (400) heat sinks forming a flow path (320/420) through which a coolant flows [par. 0058-0060], teaches the first (300) and second (400) heat sinks being integrally formed by forming a bonding surface and having a seam joining the first (300) and second (400) heat sinks (figs. 5-6) [“stir welding” par. 0057 and 0061. It is known in the art that stir welding two plates produces a seam joining the plates].
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the manufacturing process of Ha into Shin should the first and second heat sinks were separate bodies, as a matter of an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The recitation “wherein the pair of heat sink modules are arranged to be bonded on both sides of a pack center frame of a battery pack” is hypothetical language that is not the same as a positive recitation such as “is bonded”. See In re Collier, 158 U.S.P.Q. 266.
Shin does not disclose:
a pair of heat sink modules.
However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B. In this case, duplicating one or more of the first and second heat sinks in pairs as modules will further enhance heat transfer according to the user’s needs, and would be a matter of an obvious design choice that wouldn’t require inventive skills, based on Shin’s disclosure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Ha, as it applies to claim 17, above, and further in view of Paramasivan et al. (US 2018/0131051, herein “Paramasivan”).
Regarding claim 18, as it applies to claim 17, above:
Shin discloses a single heat sink module but does not disclose a pair of heat sink modules, and therefore does not disclose an outlet port provided on one module of the pair of heat sink modules being connected by a pipe member with an inlet port provide the other module of the pair.
However, Pipe members connecting an outlet port provided on one heat sink module with an inlet port provided on another heat sink module, are old and known in the art. Paramasivan, for instance, also directed to a thermal cooling device (fig. 2) comprising a plurality of heat sink modules (70A, 70B) (fig. 2) applicable to battery arrays (56A, 56B) (fig. 2) teaches the use of a piping (81) connecting an outlet port (84A) provided on one module (70A) with an inlet port (82B) provided on another module (70B), that is, connecting the modules (70A, 70B) in series with a fluid source (77), as an obvious variation of heat sink modules connected in parallel (this is, without a pipe member connecting the modules in series) for the purpose of providing effective heat transfer while reducing the overall size the thermal management system (75) [par. 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into Shin the teachings of Paramasivan, to have a pipe member connecting an outlet port provided on one module with an inlet port provided on another module as a matter of an obvious design choice, in the case of duplicated heat sink modules, according to the user’s needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection. Please refer to the rejection above.
For clarity, in pages 12-13, regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that “…the Examiner is proposing a modification which is more than a mere duplication” since “Shin and Ha do not disclose ‘the first and second heat sinks each having a communication port on one side wall adjacent to the second surface of the respective heat sink.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please refer to annotated fig. 3B-SHIN, page, where a communication port is shown formed in a side wall adjacent to the second surface of the first and second heat sinks, just as claimed.
Also in pages 12-13, and also regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that “…the Examiner is proposing a modification which is more than a mere duplication” since “neither reference discloses ‘the second heat sink comprises a second communication port on a side wall adjacent to the second surface of the respective heat sink,” and since “neither reference discloses ‘the third heat sink having a communication port on one side wall adjacent to the first surface of the third heat sink.”
In response, neither Shin nor Ha discloses the aforementioned limitations precisely because those limitations are mere duplications of features of the first and second heat sinks taught by the combination of Shin and Ha. Although the Examiner is of the opinion that a mere duplication of the first and second heat sinks of the combination of Shin and Ha will produce the aforementioned limitations claimed, and that a mere duplication of those heat sinks would be an obvious matter of design choice to one of skill in the art, an expanded explanation of the duplication of features is provided above. Please refer to the new grounds of rejection, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights