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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Applicant' s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
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 5 and 7 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " corresponding to the first column, the second column and the third column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the antecedent basis for this limitation was removed from claim 1. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is only claiming a plurality of spiral columns.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the grooves to form the plurality of flow channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the antecedent basis for this limitation was removed from claim 1. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is only claiming wherein the base comprises a plurality of grooves, and a water blocking board.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BINELLO (DE 3936918 A1: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) in view of CAO (CN 105135906 A Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, BINELLO discloses a radiator (See Figure 1), comprising:
a base (12) comprising a water input port, a water output port (see two ports in bottom of 12: Examiner notes that these two ports are capable of being used for water input or output) and a flow channel structure (channel of 10);
a column structure (4) coupled to the flow channel structure (channel of 10) of the base (12) and coupled to the water input port and the water output port (see Figure 1 and cf. Figure 2), the column structure (4) being configured to receive and output water (see ¶ [0001] i.e. “ heat exchange medium“ Examiner also notes that 4 is capable to receive and output any heat exchange medium including water), and the column structure (4) and the flow channel structure (channel of 10) forming a heat dissipation channel of the water (the path of the liquid is configured to dissipate heat since it’s radiator);
a plurality of radiating sheets (2), wherein the column structure (4) penetrates the plurality of radiating sheets (2: see Figures 1 and 2); and
a spiral structure (16) disposed in the column structure (4: see Figure 2).
BINELLO does not teach a water output duct connected to the water output port, wherein the water input port has a vertical length shorter than that of the water output duct.
However, it’s old and well known for heat exchangers to have a pipe (i.e. output duct) that is connected to output port, as evidenced by CAO, see CAO’s Figure 1 where the heat exchanger comprises output port (7), input port (22) and outlet duct (8), wherein the input port (22) has a vertical length shorter than that of the output duct (8: see Figure 1 where the vertical length of 22 is shorter than that of 8).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the base of BINELLO with a water output duct connected to the water output port, wherein the water input port has a vertical length shorter than that of the water output duct, since as evidenced by CAO, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a long fluid connection pipe that capable to be connected to a pump.
Regarding claim 3, BINELLO further discloses wherein the flow channel structure (10) comprises a water blocking board (top section of 12), and the column structure penetrates the water blocking board (see in Figure 2 where 4 penetrates the top section of 12 i.e. water blocking board).
Regarding claim 4, BINELLO further discloses wherein the column structure (4) comprises a straight area (6) and a bending area (8), the spiral structure (16) is disposed in the straight area (6) of the column structure (4: see in Figure 2 where (16) is disposed in the straight area (6)).
Regarding claim 5, BINELLO further discloses wherein the spiral structure comprises (16) a plurality of spiral columns corresponding to the first column, the second column and the third column, each of the spiral columns is separately disposed in the column corresponding thereto (see ¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, BINELLO further discloses wherein the base (12) comprises a plurality of grooves (grooves of 10), and a water blocking board (top section of 12) is disposed on the grooves to form the plurality of flow channels (see Figure 2 where the top section of 12 placed on the grooves of 10 to form the plurality of flow channels 10, i.e. including input and output flow channels).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BINELLO (DE 3936918 A1: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) in view of CAO (CN 105135906 A Machine Translation is provided by Examiner), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Valerio (EP 0978702 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, BINELLO does not teach further comprises: a water blocking board detachably connected to the base; and a gasket disposed between the base and the water blocking board to separate the water output port, the flow channel structure and the water input port.
Valerio teaches base assembly (see Figures 1 and 2) comprises a water blocking board (1) detachably connected to a base (3); and a gasket (5) disposed between the base (3) and the water blocking board (1) to separate a water output port (one of 14 ports), a flow channel structure (4) and a water input port (another one of 14 ports: see Figures 1 and 2).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the base of BINELLO with a water blocking board detachably connected to the base; and a gasket disposed between the base and the water blocking board to separate the water output port, the flow channel structure and the water input port, as taught by Valerio, such would provide the predictable benefit of sealing the flow channels while preventing leaks from the radiator base.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763