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 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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2008/0144319 to Chang in view of US Patent 5,086,831 to Paikert.
In Reference to Claim 1, 2, 4-8 and 16
Chang discloses an LED curing apparatus cooling system comprising at least one LED mount for mounting a plurality of LEDs (Fig. 1, 20); at least one bore (Fig. 1, 412) in the LED mount; at least one thermal transfer member (Fig. 1, 42)
Chang discloses the thermal transfer member is a heat pipe (As showed in Fig. 1)
Chang discloses the thermal transfer member is welded on the base. Chang does not teach removable.
Paikert teaches the or each thermal transfer member (Fig. 3, 28) is removably connected to a bore; and wherein each thermal transfer member comprises a collar (Fig. 3, 21) having an outer surface to mate with an inner surface of a bore.
the collar (Fig. 3, 21) is attached to the evaporator section of the heat pipe (Fig. 3, 28).
the outer surface of the or each collar is shaped to mate with a shaped inner surface of a respective bore. (As showed in Fig. 3)
the outer surface of the or each collar comprises a threaded portion (Col. 5, Line 34-36) to mate with a threaded inner surface of a respective bore.
the or each collar is a connecting band (Fig. 3, 21).
the or each collar is an annular band. (Fig. 3, 21)
the or each collar is cylindrical having a base at a first end and an opening at an opposing second end. (Fig. 3, 21)
the or each collar comprises a threaded portion and a non-threaded portion. (Col. 5, 34-36, the collar 21 may have a conical thread, the Office considers that the thread covering area is merely a design choice. A person with ordinary skill in the art will determine the length and size of the thread based on the performance requirement)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Paikert into the design of Chang. Doing so, would result in the collar design of Paikert being used to replace the welding connection of Chang to attach the heat pipe to the based. Both inventions of Chang and Paikert solve the same issue, attaching a heat pipe to a frame. Paikert provides a design improving the efficiency of maintenance.
In Reference to Claim 3
Chang teaches the heat pipe is aluminum (The heat pipe 42 is made of aluminum through extrusion).
In Reference to Claim 10
Chang discloses the or each LED mount comprises a thermal transfer material between the or each thermal transfer member and the bore. (Fig. 1, the heat pipe comprising multiple layers for the purposes of heat transfer)
In Reference to Claim 11
Chang discloses the or each LED mount comprises a thermal transfer material between the or each thermal transfer member and the bore (Fig. 1, the heat pipe comprising multiple layers for the purposes of heat transfer)
Chang does not teach a thermal conductivity greater than about 5W/mK.
The Office considers “a thermal conductivity greater than about 5W/mk" as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since heat pipe is covered by several layers of the material for the purpose of thermal transmission, a person with ordinary skill in the art will naturally determine the coating material to meet the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
In Reference to Claim 12
Chang discloses the or each LED mount comprises a thermal transfer material between the or each thermal transfer member and the bore and the thermal transfer material is a ceramic paste. (inner surface of the pipe body is a wick structure, which is configured of sintered power or screen mesh. ) The Office considers that sintered power dis a kind of ceramic.
In Reference to Claim 13
Chang discloses the or each LED mount comprises a thermal transfer material (As showed in Fig. 1, the heat pipe is covered with heat transfer material)
Chang does not teach the collar
Paikert teach the collar (Fig. 2, 21) and the bore to which the collar is removably connected (As showed in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Paikert into the design of Chang. Doing so, would result in the collar design of Paikert being used to replace the welding connection of Chang to attach the heat pipe to the based. Both inventions of Chang and Paikert solve the same issue, attaching a heat pipe to a frame. Paikert provides a design improving the efficiency of maintenance.
In Reference to Claim 14
Chang discloses one or more LEDs mounted on the LED mount. (As showed in Fig. 4)
In Reference to Claim 15
The combination of Chang and Paikert teaches a collar is attached to the heat pipe.
The combination of Chang and Paikert does not teach the collar is made of copper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a copper collar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 17
Chang discloses the or each bore (Fig. 1, 412) is substantially cylindrical.
In Reference to Claim 18
Chang discloses A cooling module for an LED curing apparatus comprising the LED curing apparatus cooling system according to claim 1, wherein the or each thermal transfer member is also connected to at least one air-cooled finned (Fig. 1, 40) heat sink.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang and Paikert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CA2171505 to Alexander.
In Reference to Claim 9
The combination of Chang and Paikert as applied to Claim 1 teaches the collar.
The combination of Chang and Paikert as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the collar is soldered to the heat pipe.
Alexander teaches the collar is soldered to the heat pipe (the coupling collars are welded to the ends of the pipes)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Alexander into the combination of Chang and Paikert as applied to Claim 9. Doing so, would result in the collar is welded to the pipe as being taught by Alexander. According to MPEP, "[E]ven 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."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 9/26/25