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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/25/23, 12/20/24, and 7/28/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 7-8, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/25. Applicant elected species A-XI.
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.
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.
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 1-4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa (U.S. PGPub 2021/0310745 – note this has priority to WO2007/026833) in view of Minamitani et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0178533) and Thayer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0185823).
Regarding claim 1, Ohsawa teaches a thermal device (element 1) comprising: a container (created by the stacked plates shown in fig. 2A) comprising an internal space (element 10a), an opening portion (where element 4 or 5 enter 10a/at element 52) connected to the internal space (per fig. 14a-e), and a communication path (pass through of elements 4 or 5) configured to connect the internal space and the opening portion (per fig. 14a-e); a fluid located in the internal space (“refrige3rant” para. 0016-0017); and a sealing portion (shown in fig. 16B made of element 8) configured to block the opening portion, wherein the sealing portion comprises a core portion (element 8) and the core portion is located in the opening portion (per fig. 16B), and
a portion of the core portion is in contact with a wall surface of the opening portion (per fig. 16B).
Ohsawa does not teach a ceramic container. It is well known in the art to make thermal device containers with ceramics (shown by Zhou para. 0025). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohsawa to use the ceramics for the body, the motivation would be the well-known strength and heat transfer of the material.
Ohsawa does not teach a flange made of metal, and is connected to the core portion via a bonding layer made of metal, the flange is bonded to the container around the opening portion. Minamitani teaches a flange (area of 18, see para. 0053) made of metal (para. 0041 element 15 is metal, note the flange is element 15 near 18 per the cited para. 0053), the flange is bonded to the container around the opening portion (it is taught brazed at the inlet/outlet para. 0053). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohsawa to include the flange at the communication portion as taught by Minamitani such that it was around the core and opening portion as claimed, the motivation to do so is to improve the sealing strength (para. 0053).
Ohsawa does not teach a flange made of metal, and is connected to the core portion via a bonding layer made of metal. Thayer teaches using a bonding layer made of metal for brazing (para. 0028). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Ohsawa bonding layer as taught by Thayer as claimed, the motivation to do so is the enhance thermal communication with connected elements (para. 0028)
Regarding claim 3, Ohsawa in view of Minamitani teaches the core portion comprises a body portion (center mass of element 8; note this matches the identified section of applicants specification), and a large-diameter portion located over an entire circumference of the body portion outer edge of element 8, where it touches the sidewalls of 4/5) and connected to the flange (as the flange as taught is over the inlet/outlet thus in combination must connect with the core as claimed), and a thickness of the large-diameter portion is less than a thickness of the flange (note that the claim does not limit what measurements are these claimed thickness- depth/circumference/etc.- as the flange as taught is larger than the opening (as it covers it) it would thus be larger than the core when between them thus having a larger “thickness”).
Examiner further notes the term “connected” is very broad and if applicant is try to claim the two elements as a single piece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the core and flange into a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Ohsawa teaches a tip end (end closest to 10a) of the large-diameter portion has a tapered shape (per fig. 16B – the rounded shape may be considered tapered).
Regarding claim 6, Ohsawa in view of Minamitani teaches the sealing portion has a protruding portion on an upper surface thereof (Minamitani teach the flange in fig. 8 extending out past the edges). Similar to claim 1 this is done to improve the strength by increasing the contact surface area.
Regarding claim 11, Ohsawa teaches the communication path comprises a tapered portion in a cross-sectional view (per fig. 16B – the rounded shape may be considered tapered – note the opening is rounded).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or make obvious a diameter of the second path is smaller than a diameter of the first path, and the second path is blocked by the core portion. Ohsawa does not teach a smaller path connected as claimed and does not teach blocking of any such paths, additional prior art while teaching smaller paths off an inlet/outlet do not teach them being blocked as claimed, and such would not be obvious as it would prevent the path from being used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 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
Prosecution Insights