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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The phrase “unidirectional circulation means” (claim 1) has been examined as –a valve or a fluidic diode --.
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.
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) 1, 3-4, 5, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSALES et al. US 20190257589 A1 in view of LAN US20200328137A1.
Re claim 1, ROSALES et al. teach a micro-channel type evaporator suitable for cooling electronic components , comprising: a plate body (400 body) having an external coupling surface with an electronic component (900, 910) to be cooled (fig 9),
wherein said plate body internally carries an inlet manifold for a two-phase cooling fluid and an outlet manifold for said fluid downstream of the heat exchange (annotated fig), wherein said inlet manifold and said outlet manifold are in fluid communication by a heat exchange chamber (2620) within said plate body at said coupling surface
said heat exchange chamber comprises first flow channels extending along said external coupling surface (para 162).
ROSALES et al. fail to explicitly teach unidirectional circulation means.
LAN teach are in fluid communication by a heat exchange chamber by unidirectional circulation means (343) of the two-phase cooling fluid to provide a one way valve near the lower section of the loop device .
When combined, the instant combination teach said unidirectional circulation means is housed in said plate body and is configured to allow circulation of the liquid phase of the fluid exclusively from said outlet manifold towards said inlet manifold (in the instant combination “said unidirectional circulation means” is placed at bottom of 430 where fluid collects due to gravity, as taught by the primary reference paras 83-84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include unidirectional circulation means as taught by LAN in the ROSALES et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for vapor V would be condensed into liquid L and flow back down to the heat absorbing cavity 30 without going in upward direction (para 29)
PNG
media_image1.png
522
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, ROSALES et al. , as modified, teach wherein said unidirectional circulation means is external to said heat exchange chamber (figs, see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 4, ROSALES et al. teach wherein said plate body comprises a base plate (annotated fig) and a cover element (annotated fig) coupled together in such a way as to define said first flow channels (noting various flow channels meeting broad claims limitations) for the two-phase cooling fluid carried inside said heat exchange chamber (figs, see the rejection of claim 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
972
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, ROSALES et al. teach said first flow channels extend along respective prevalent directions of development parallel to each other (figs, 2650a form parallel channels).
Re claim 7, ROSALES et al. teach wherein said heat exchange chamber is interposed between said inlet manifold (figs, see the rejection of claim 1) and said outlet manifold (fig 4).
Re claim 13, ROSALES et al. teach wherein said plate body has a substantially quadrilateral geometry (noting the term substantially quadrilateral geometry is very broad and Lan teach multiple perimeters of the system defined by a substantially quadrilateral geometry perimeter) and wherein said inlet manifold and said outlet manifold are positioned along opposite perimeter edges of said plate body (figs).
Claim(s) 2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSALES et al. US 20190257589 A1 in view of LAN US20200328137A1 in view of VOSS US 20210278491 A1.
Re claim 2, ROSALES et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a Tesla valve.
VOSS teach , wherein said unidirectional circulation means comprises a Tesla valve (para 34) to ensure single direction flow in thermosiphon applications (paras 3, 9-11, ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a Tesla valve as taught by VOSS in the ROSALES et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for flow control in different heat exchange arrangements.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to include a Tesla valve as taught by VOSS in the ROSALES et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for flow control in different heat exchange arrangements.
Re claim 8, ROSALES et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach said unidirectional circulation means comprises second flow channels.
VOSS teach wherein said unidirectional circulation means comprises second flow channels (fig 3 noting tesla valves contains multiple channels, para 34) for the two-phase cooling fluid external to said heat exchange chamber to ensure single direction flow in thermosiphon applications (paras 3, 9-11, ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include said unidirectional circulation means comprises second flow channels as taught by VOSS in the ROSALES et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for flow control in different heat exchange arrangements with a tesla valve.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to said unidirectional circulation means comprises second flow channels as taught by VOSS in the ROSALES et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for flow control in different heat exchange arrangements.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSALES et al. US 20190257589 A1 in view of LAN US20200328137A1 in view of Endoh US 20200033068 A1.
Rew claim 6, ROSALES et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach fins.
Endoh teach wherein said first flow channels (31) comprise a metal foam structure or a plurality of ribs made in form of fins (32) to aid in condensing the working medium (in the instant combination fins are added to both condensation portions of 34 primary reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include fins as taught by Endoh in the ROSALES et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved heat exchange performance as is known in the art to improve condensing sections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LAN fails to teach details of claim 1. However, the scope of the claim 1 has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on ROSALES et al. to teach the recited claim 1 lines 1-5, first portion of line 6, and lines 8-9 (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763