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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thermoelectric transducer, a circuit network configured to determine an unequal current feed through the individual conductor track sections, where the fields have different sizes and a line shape of the conductor track sections in the respective fields is scaled to the size of a respective rectangular area ,and different conductor tracks of the same circuit board being in parallel and/or in series with each other, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Additionally, different conductor tracks have of the same circuit board have not been shown to be in parallel or in series with each other.
Drawings figure 9 and 10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m) for use of inappropriate black shading.
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 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 1-29 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 1 is rejected because “the circuit board” in line 11 lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear which of the “at least one circuit board” is being referred to and because the “conductor track sections” in line 12 lacks antecedent basis because as previously in the claim there is nothing to prevent us reading the claim as a single conductor track section running through multiple fields, additionally it is unclear what defines a “conductor track” and what the limits of one are. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner will treat “the circuit board” top mean “a circuit board”, the “conductor track sections” to be the part of the conductor track that is in within the field, and that a “conductor track” is any set of two or more conductor track sections connected together.
Claim 9 is rejected because it is unclear how “the circuit network is configured to determine an unequal current feed through the individual conductor track sections” as the circuit network does not have any ways of measuring amperage inside the current network. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner will treat “configured to determine …” as “configured to allow for an unequal current feed through the individual conductor track sections.”
Claim 10 is rejected because it is unclear what “at least one electrically conductive connection connects two respective unconnected ends” means as it is unclear how unconnected ends can be connected without them failing to be unconnected anymore. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner will treat “at least one electrically conductive connection connects two respective unconnected ends” as “at least one electrically conductive connection connects two otherwise unconnected ends.”
Claim 11 is rejected because it is unclear if the “in each case” part of the phrase “are surrounded on all sides in each case” refers to all of the fields or that regardless of which of the following and/or statements are true that the first is always true. Additionally, it is unclear by what the fields are to be surrounded by and in how many dimensions. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will take “in each case” to refer to each field and that as long as the fields are surrounded by something in all three dimensions, it is true.
Claim 12 is rejected because there is no such thing as Plantonic tiling. There however is Platonic tiling. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will take Plantonic to mean Platonic.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is unclear what “a line shape of different fields is rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees towards each other” means as in which axis the shape is rotated in. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will take the phrase to mean that a line shape of at least two fields is the same shape just rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees under any axis but not just translated.
Claim 20 and 22 recite the limitation “a respective rectangular area” in the last line of the claim. It is unclear what it is the rectangular area of.
Claim 22 is rejected because it is unclear if the phrase “scaled to the size of a respective rectangular area” means that the line shape is itself scaled to the new size or if the same pattern just repeated over the new area. It is also unclear if the rectangular fields are also required to be scaled. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will take the limitations to be that the line shape itself is scaled at the same rate that the rectangular area is scaled.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected because the phrase “a respective circuit board” makes it unclear which of the at least one circuit boards from claim 1 is being referred to.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected because according to paragraph [0107], the Peltier element or thermoelectric transducer is a replacement of the heating elements of the conductor track which are required by claim 1 of which claim 26 depends on. Therefore it is unclear what the scope of claim 26 is intended to be, especially since no figure has been provided that shows the feature in any form.
Claim 27 is rejected because the phrase “the circuit board” makes it unclear which of the at least one circuit boards from claim 26 is being referred to.
Claim 28 recites the limitations “The housing” and “a housing” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 depends on claim 7 which has the limitation of at least one electrically conductive connection between ends of different conductor tracks on the same circuit board, while claim 10 has the limitation of at least one electrically conductive connection between ends Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13 15-18, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0046914) hereafter referred to as Yoshioka as evidenced by NPL “Commensurable” by Merriam-Webster and NPL “Investigating the I-V characteristics of electrical components” by the BBC.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yoshioka teaches a device (Figure 2. 11) for thermally loading a heat sink (41) with at least one circuit board (60) on the heat sink (41) comprising at least one conductor track (61) made of at least two fields (Figure 6. R1-R7) wherein a continuous electrically conductive track section (61 within each field R1-R7), which is to say the section of the conductor track that is in each field, runs and that a path length of the at least one conductor track section (61 within each field R1-R7) within each of the fields (R1-R7) is greater than an edge length of the respective field (R1-R7), and that the fields (R1-R7) comprise tiles (the area of each R1-R7) of a tiling on a side of the circuit board (60) and where the conductor track sections (61 within each field R1-R7) thermally load the heat sink (41) depending on a current feed to the respective conductor track (61) as the conductor track sections are heating wire ([0063]) and as resistors heat up when current is passed through them as evidenced by “Investigating the I-V characteristics of electrical components” by the BBC and then according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics those resistors heat up everything cooler around them making them a heating wire, and that resistors are ohmic conductors which is also taught by “Investigating the I-V characteristics of electrical components” by the BBC.
Regarding claims 3-8, 10 and 19, the conductor track sections (61 within each field R1-R7) of the each of the fields in figure 6.A below are electrically connected to at least one adjacent conductor track sections (61 within each field R1-R7) in series (Figure 6.A below) with conductors as the continuous heating wire which the conductor track (61) is made out of is a conductor and that the heating wire bridges from each conductor track section to the next without any breaks (Figure 6.A below 61), without the connection the different sections would in fact be unconnected, and the fields are arranged in rows and columns, shown by the new dotted lines in amended figure 6.A below as applicant has not identified structurally how sections should be interpreted, and each row across, or column if you turn 90 degrees, consists of two sections which comprise a conductor track.
PNG
media_image1.png
755
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6.A
Regarding claim 11, the shapes of the area of the fields (the dashed lines in Figure 6.A above) are polygons, rectangles to be exact, and have edges that are aligned parallel to each other (Fig 6.A above) as the edges are either horizontal or vertical.
Regarding claim 12, as the fields (Figure 6. R1-R7) are of different shapes of rectangles and sizes and as the shapes of the fields fit together without gaps as of in a tiling pattern, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the pattern of the fields to make them square and therefore platonic tiling.
Regarding claim 13, the edge lengths of the edges parallel to each other of the fields of figure 6.A are commensurable (divisible without remainder by a common unit. Definition by Merriam-Webster) because each of the horizontal lengths of fields is the same half of the way across or a 1:1 ratio and the vertical lengths of the track are for most of the fields the same 1:1 ratio except for the top most field which is three times as large or a 3:1 ratio. As all of the numbers are whole numbers the edge lengths of the edges are commensurable.
Regarding claim 14, the fields of figure 6.A above are rectangular areas and a line shape of different fields is rotated 180 degrees towards each other.
Regarding claim 15, all of the conductor track sections (61) in the fields (R1-R7) are branch and crossing free (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 16, there is a power source or power supply device (62) configured to supply current (Fig 5) to the at least one conductor track (61).
Regarding claim 17, each of the circuit boards or hot plates (60) have two opposite sides (Figure 2), where one side has the fields (R1-R7) and thus the heating wire, while the other side is in contact with the heat sink (41).
Regarding claim 18, there is a control unit (20) that controls the amount of heat from the heaters (61) based on the temperature measurements of the temperature sensor (91) [(0098)].
Regarding claim 20, If one combines fields R1 and R2 (Figure 6) into one combined field, then all of the 6 fields have two respective connection points at opposite edges of a respective rectangular area.
Regarding claim 21, there are multiple fields shown in figure 6.A where the line shape in those fields is rotated 180 degrees from a second line shape in a nearby field and are matching shapes.
Regarding claim 22, as the fields (Figure 6 R1-R7) are of different sizes,
Regarding claim 25, the conductor track sections (61) in fields (R1-R7) each have a meandering pattern.
Regarding claim 28, the warming device (11) housing as shown in figure 2 (43 and 44) containing the internals comprises a housing because it houses the internals.
Regarding claim 29, the contour of the hot plate (60) corresponds to a heat contact area of the heat sink (41).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Balluff et al. (US Application 2012/0330234) hereafter referred to as Balluff as evidenced by NASA “Resistors in Parallel”.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshioka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, but only teaches resistors in series making them unable of having an unequal current feed.
Balluff teaches conductor tracks (Figure 16, 113) not in one long string of series, but in four parallel tracks (Figure 16) therefore allowing the possibility of different current feed throughout the different sections of conductor tracks. As it is commonly known in the art of electronics that series and parallel are different types of wiring and that one can use either of the two as options in any given scenario. Additionally, it is an innate property of resistors in parallel as evidenced by NASA in “Resistors in Parallel”, that the current going through any given resistor is dependent on the resistance of that resistor and that different resistors can have different currents going through them. As resistance is a given property and current is a measure of voltage and resistance (Ohm’s Law), if there would be uneven resistances on each side of the parallel paths, then when current is traveling through, there would always be unequal current though the track sections that make up those paths as such the current network determines if there is to be an unequal current feed throughout the individual track sections.
As Yoshioka teaches an electric heater with the resistors in series it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace it with the teachings of Balluff where the resistors are in parallel as wiring in series and in parallel are equivalent substitutions of each other and when the resistors are in parallel the device would be capable of allowing an unequal current feed.
Claim 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Brexeler (US Patent Application 2020/0035385).
Regarding claim 26, Yoshioka teaches a circuit board (42) comprising at least one field configured to generate a temperature gradient (Figure 8). However, it does not teach the use of a thermoelectric transducer.
However, Brexeler teaches the use of a thermoelectric transducer or Peltier element (13) as a heating element with wires to conduct electricity to it.
As the prior art contained a device that differed only from the claimed device by the substitution of a thermoelectric transducer with the resistors of the conductor track and that as the wires are conductors and therefore heat up when conducting electricity, therefore acting as to thermally load the heat sink (Yoshioka 41), and that the use of a thermoelectric transducer to create a temperature gradient is known in the art of heaters, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the resistors of the conductor track of Yoshioka with the use of thermoelectric transducers of Brexeler to increase the temperature gradient of the circuit board.
Regarding claim 27, The modified device of Yoshioka teaches the temperature gradient to be parallel to the circuit board (Figure 1) and according to the laws of thermodynamics heat will naturally flow from hot to cold. (2nd Law) so the temperature gradient is configured to transfer heat within the circuit board from hot to cold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 23, although Schrey et al. (US Patent 11013106) hereafter referred to as Schrey, has breakaway lines of a circuit board, those are for removing parts of the circuit board and not to border fields additionally, Schrey has nothing to do with heating.
Regarding claim 24, examiner could find no prior art that had on one side of the circuit board parallel breakaway lines but had crossing breakaway lines on the other in the art of heating circuit boards. Schrey had the breakaway lines pass straight through the circuit board.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grande (US Patent Application 2022/0042639) teaches a heated fluid transport system or a way to heat a flowing fluid or a heat sink. It does not teach
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761