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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim currently reads “parallel to and offset from vertical axis” which should properly be “parallel to and offset from the vertical axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (U.S. PGPub 2024/0349456) in view of Tang-Kong (U.S. PGPub 2018/0077817).
Regarding claim 1, Patel teaches a heat sink (element 300) for cooling at least one power electronics device (element 270) in a coil unit (note that applicant is not affirmatively claiming either the electronic device or the coil unit as such this is merely use that the structure is capable of as such It has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II), further note that the recitation that this has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. MPEP 2111.02) the heat sink comprising: a base plate (element 302) having a first portion (section under 310) and a second portion (section under 312), the second portion being arranged vertically beneath the first portion (note as written this limitation is extremely broad and may either be a matter of use/orientation of the structure, the taught prior art is capable of this); a plurality of fins (element 312) extending from a surface of the base plate (per fig. 5), the plurality of fins being arranged at the second portion (per fig. 4-5), the first portion and second portion being aligned along a vertical axis (this is merely rotation of the device 90 degrees resulting in reading on this limitation, see para. 0046 of the specification, this is mere use of the taught structure and it has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II), and the structure is capable of being turned 90 degrees and functioning thus reading on the claim).
Patel does not specifically teach a height of the plurality of fins measured perpendicular to the surface varies across a width of the base plate. Tang-Kong teaches a height of the plurality of fins measured perpendicular to the surface varies across a width of the base plate (para. 0008). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the plurality of fins as taught by Tang-Kong, such that fin height varies, the motivation to do so is to promote heat dissipation at the heat source location (Para. 0008).
Regarding claim 2, Patel as modified by Tang-Kong teaches the base plate includes a central portion and at least one end portion (inherent in a plate structure – middle section is central and end portion near edges of Patel), and a height of the plurality of fins at the central portion is different than a height of the plurality of fins at the at least one end portion (Tang-Kong per fig. 2 and para. 0008), for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 3, Patel as modified by Tang-Kong teaches the height of the plurality of fins at the central portion is greater than the height of the plurality of fins at the at least one end portion (Tang-Kong per fig. 2 and para. 0008), for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, Patel does not teach the height of the plurality of fins at the at least one end portion varies such that a distal end of the plurality of fins at the at least one end portion arranged within an angled plane (there is an angle across the tops of any two fins, as applicant merely claims at end portion, shown in Tang-Kong thus reading on this limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Patel teaches another plurality of fins (element 310) extends from the surface of the base plate (per fig. 4-5), the another plurality of fins being arranged within the first portion (per fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Patel teaches the base plate includes a central portion and at least one end portion (inherent in a plate structure – middle section is central and end portion near edges of Patel), and the another plurality of fins includes a first plurality of fins arranged at the central portion (per fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Patel teaches the first plurality of fins are identical (per fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Patel teaches the another plurality of fins includes a second plurality of fins arranged at the at least one end portion (per fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Patel teaches a height of the second plurality of fins is different relative to a height of the first plurality of fins (per fig. 4-5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (U.S. PGPub 2024/0349456) in view of Tang-Kong (U.S. PGPub 2018/0077817), and further view of Lin (U.S. PGPub 2002/0075653).
Regarding claim 11, Patel does not teach a height of the second plurality of fins varies to form a curvature.
Lin teaches a height of a plurality of fins varies to form a curvature (fig. 3-6 & 0012). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the second plurality of fins of plurality to have fins forming a curvature as taught by Lin, the motivation would be causing convection currents (para. 0012).
Claims 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN208090844).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches a coil unit comprising: a heat exchanger (fig. 1); a fan assembly mounted to the heat exchanger, the fan (element 5) assembly including a fan rotor rotatable about a vertical axis (per fig. 1); at least one power electronic device (element 2); a heat sink (element 1) mounted adjacent to the at least one power electronic device (per fig. 1), wherein the fan assembly is operable to move an airflow through the heat exchanger and across the heat sink (per fig. 1), the heat sink further comprising: a base plate (element 11) having a first portion (the left side) and a second portion (right side) vertically aligned parallel to and offset from vertical axis (per fig. 1), the first portion being aligned along a horizontal axis with a portion of the fan assembly rotor and a second portion arranged vertically below the fan assembly (per fig. 1, this is merely rotation of the device 90 degrees resulting in reading on this limitation is mere use of the taught structure and it has been held that the 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 claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II), and the structure is capable of being turned 90 degrees and functioning thus reading on the claim); a plurality of fins extending from the second portion of the base plate (per fig. 1), wherein a height of the plurality of fins measured perpendicular to the base plate varies across a width of the base plate (per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches a height of the plurality of fins varies such that a distal end of the plurality of fins are arranged within an angled plane (per fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches another plurality of fins arranged at the first portion of the base plate, wherein a configuration of the another plurality of fins is different than a configuration of the plurality of fins (note since the plurality is not numerically limited it may be considered the first two and second tow fins to read on this limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches a gap is defined between the another plurality of fins arranged within the first portion and the fan assembly (per fig. 1 there is a space there).
Regarding claim 20, Chen does not teach the gap is at least about 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimum distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-2, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 17/986,568 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amendments and prior art 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
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763