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 10/22/25 is being considered by the examiner.
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 3-4 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for the term “lotus-type” as the claim and specification do NOT make clear what such a structure includes or would be. Applicant at best references Japanese Patent No. 4235813 (with U.S. patent 7261141 corresponding to and used as reference thereof per their 10/22/25 IDS). Examiner reviewed the submitted art (specifically 7,261,141 as reference for JP 4235813) and found no reference to the term “lotus-type”. Examiner previously reviewed Nakajima (U.S. PGPub 2005/0145364) which claims priority for this same application as the cited Japanese patent and the specification does not include or use the term “lotus” (noted in the previous action). This term has no clear meaning in the art or definition in applicants’ specification. For examination purposes any metal solidification method will read on this limitation.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (U.S. Patent 4,949,164) in view of Tsunoda (U.S. PGPub 2020/0214169).
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches an ebullition cooling device (fig. 1) including: a heat receiving portion (portion of element 10 contacting element 1) to which a cooling target object (element 1) is attached (per fig. 11); and a heat radiating portion (element 10 exposed to element 3) to which heat is transmitted by ebullition and evaporation of a refrigerant liquid in contact with the heat receiving portion (fig. 1 and 11), the heat receiving portion includes: having an attachment surface to which the cooling target object is attached (per fig. 11 element 1 and 10 are connected) and an uneven surface (fins of element 10 inherently are uneven, further see fin structure applied below) wherein a porous body (element 7) attached to be superimposed on the uneven surface of the heat transfer wall (per fig. 11), the porous body having a plurality of through holes (opening shown in fig. 11) formed therein, one opening of each of the through holes facing the uneven surface (per fig. 11), and the other opening of each of the through holes being opened to a space on a side opposite to the uneven surface(per fig. 11), at least the uneven surface of the heat transfer wall and the porous body are immersed in the refrigerant liquid (per fig. 1 and 11), and the uneven surface of the heat transfer wall is a vertical surface or an inclined surface having a height position that changes in one direction along which the grooves extend, and at least one end (per fig. 11 in combination with fin structure applied below,) at a higher position, of opposite ends of each of the grooves in the direction along which the grooves extend is opened (per fig. 1 and 11).
Ohashi does not expressly teach the heat receiving portion includes a heat transfer wall having an attachment surface to which the cooling target object is attached and an uneven surface having a plurality of grooves provided in a region excluding the attachment surface. Tsunoda teaches he heat receiving portion includes a heat transfer wall (element 26) having an attachment surface to which the cooling target object (element 20) is attached (per fig. 2) and an uneven surface having a plurality of grooves provided in a region excluding the attachment surface (created by the fins 28 extending from element 26). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to apply the fin structure/mounting of Tsunoda to the fins of Ohashi, the motivation to do so would be to direct the thermal energy form the cooling target object to the fluid (para. 0026-0027).
Tsunoda further teaches members in the fluid and conducting heat are metal (para. 0028), thus it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to make the porous body of metal, the motivation to do so would the thermal conductivity (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Tsunoda teaches the uneven surface includes the plurality of grooves extending mutually in parallel (per fig. 2),it would be obvious that the metal porous body is attached to the uneven surface with the opposite ends of the grooves being opened as the combination of Tsunoda with Ohashi (specifically as the porous body is shown in fig. 11) such that this structure would result, the motivation to do so would be to direct the thermal energy form the cooling target object to the fluid (para. 0026-0027).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (U.S. Patent 4,949,164) in view of Tsunoda (U.S. PGPub 2020/0214169), and in further view of Nakajima (U.S. PGPub 2005/0145364).
Regarding claim 3 & 4, Ohashi teaches porous metal molded body having a plurality of pores that extend in one direction (per fig. 11). Ohashi does not teach the metal porous body is a metal molded body molded by a metal solidification method.
Nakajima teaches a method of forming a metal porous body is a metal molded body molded by a metal solidification method (abstract). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to make the porous body using Nakajima’s method, the motivoant would be to produce pores while not negatively affecting the thermal conductivity by the process.
Further examiner notes that In product-by-process claim limitations, as this is, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are responded to below.
With regards to the 112(b) rejection of “lotus-type” applicants arguments fail to overcome the reference. Applicants arguments rely on JP 4235813 as teaching the term. Applicant in the argument fail to state when or how the term is applied in the cited reference. Applicants’ own admitted reference (translation) of this prior art, U.S. Patent 7261141, fails to include the term at all in review. Thus applicants’ assertion appears to be unsupported in this prior art.
With regards to applicants’ arguments regarding the teaching of Ohashi heat transfer member the examiner finds the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Ohashi’s partition wall is “unattached and fully exposed to water flow”. Examiner notes that applicant merely references a single figure and provides no citation form the specification of the prior art to support this assertion. The examiner upon review finds this assertion unsupported as fig. 1 clearly shows that element 7 is connected on the sides and supported by the backwall. It is unclear if applicant was trying to assert that somehow element 7 was floating freely in the fluid or how the partition wall was “unattached”.
With regards to applicants’ argument regarding the combinability of the prior art the examiner respectfully disagrees as in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With regards to applicants arguments that (a) the transfer wall is a vertical surface or an inclined surface having a height position that changes in one direction along which the grooves extend; and (b) at least one end, at a higher position, of opposite ends of each of the grooves in the direction along which the grooves extend is opened. Are not taught by the prior art as required applicant fails to show how these elements are not taught per the rejection made (see paragraphs 11-13) above.
It is further notes that applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cooling liquid supplied form the front side and applicants method of fluid flow, grooves being open to the outside and opened down below) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For these reasons the rejections are maintained.
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