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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emani (US20130062333A1).
In re claims 1,8,15 Emani discloses a heater element with cooling enhancements comprising;
a tubular component (630) formed of a unitary, contiguous piece of material and including a conduit (640) embedded between an interior surface and an exterior surface of a sidewall thereof (inherent as shown in fig.6a), wherein the conduit includes a set of raised features formed on an inner surface of the conduit, (para 38, fins that can also be incorporated to the channels for heat dissipation);
a base section including an inlet and an outlet (fig.10 (1050)), wherein the conduit is connected with the inlet and the outlet, and wherein the inlet, the outlet, and the conduit operate to deliver a cooling fluid (para. 61-63).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
724
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Re to claims 2,3,9,16,17 Enami teaches that the raised features can be a fin or other shaped protrusions (560) as seen in figs 4/5 and para.38-41, for better heat dissipation.
In Re to claims 6,12,13,19 Emani teaches second (multiple) conduits that are embedded in the side wall with circular cross-sections, see figs 4/5.
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.
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) 5,10,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enami in view of Kolodner et al. (US 2009/0242036 A1).
Enami does not specifically disclose the shape of the conduit section being pentagonal or triangular top. However, Kolodner et al. teach a conduit that can take many shapes and form such as pentagon or triangular.
First, Emani teaches different fins or protrusions (560) in the conduit can be implemented, and he further mentions that the opening size of the top portion can be configured to provide uniform flow to the channels (para 63/72). Further, Kolodner teaches the conduit can have various sizes and shapes to meet whatever standard/specification, para 31/32. Thus, the modification of Emani apparatus with either pentagon or triangular shape top/bottom, as shown by Kolodner et al, would have merely constituted an obvious design expedient of the inventor at the time of the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4,7,11,14,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enami in view of Berg (US 4,256,919).
In Re to claims 4,7,11,14,18 Enami teaches curved channels or helix (fig. 6B, 642) in the conduit.
However, Enami does not specify that the channels are arranged as a helix that extends around an entire circumference of the conduit.
Berg demonstrates the well-known arrangement of helical heat exchange channels that wrap around an entire circumference of a body. Fig. 1 (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to wrap the helical channels of Enami all the way around its conduit’s circumference in the fashion taught by Berg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve heat exchange.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2293. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5PM.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights