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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
pressure device , in claims 1-4 and 6-12.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “device” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. configured to “pressure”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines pressure device, “the pressure device 20 of the current embodiment of the present disclosure includes a flat spring 22 and at least one fixing member 24. The flat spring 22 is an arc-shaped elastic sheet. The flat spring 22 has at least one fixing hole 221”, see paragraph [0035]. Therefore, the pressure device will be construed as a flat spring that has at least one fixing hole, and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “heat pipe chamber” in claims 1, 2, and 5 is used by the claim to mean “space” for heat pipe, while the accepted meaning is “heat pipe enclosed space ” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “heat pipe” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “cold plate” or single phase cooling device, while the accepted meaning is “a heat-transfer device that employs phase transition to transfer heat between two solid interfaces ” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “inlet/outlet port” in claims 1-4 is used by the claim to mean “slot or notch” for inlet and outlet ports, while the accepted meaning is “ the entry or the exit points where fluid, gas, or water enters or leave a system, ” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 6-12 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 13-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “heat pipe” in claims 13-20 is used by the claim to mean “cold plate” or single phase cooling device, while the accepted meaning is “a heat-transfer device that employs phase transition to transfer heat between two solid interfaces ” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by YU (CN110418550B: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 13, YU teaches a heat pipe of a liquid-cooling radiator (see Figures 1, 2, and 10(a)), comprising a pipe body (110, 120, 210, and 220) that is flexible (see at least ¶[76]), wherein the pipe body (110, 120, 210, and 220) has a flow channel (channel of 350: see Figure 10(a)); the flow channel has a flow channel inlet and a flow channel outlet (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner); two opposite sides (upper and lower sides) of the pipe body (110, 120, 210, and 220) respectively have a cooling surface (lower side) and an abutting surface (upper side); at least one fin (wall structure surrounding each 310) that is flexible is
PNG
media_image1.png
322
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
disposed in the flow channel (see at least ¶[76]).
YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 14, YU further teaches wherein the at least one fin has a through hole (310); the through hole penetrates through the cooling surface and the abutting surface (see at least ¶[100]).
Regarding claim 16, YU further teaches wherein the at least one fin includes a plurality of fins (wall structure surrounding each 310: see Figure 10(a)); the plurality of fins are sheet-like (see Figure 5, at least one of the lower two options) and are configured in a direction the same as an extending direction of the flow channel (see Figure 5 and cf. Figure 10(a) where the wall structure surrounding each 310 is configured in a direction the same as an extending direction (i.e. left right direction ) of the flow channel of 350); the plurality of fins are arranged in a staggered arrangement in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the flow channel and are arranged along the extending direction of the flow channel (see Figure 5 and cf. Figure 10(a) where the wall structure surrounding each 310 are arranged in a staggered arrangement in front-back direction and arranged along the left right direction).
Regarding claim 17, YU further teaches wherein the at least one fin includes a plurality of fins (wall structure surrounding each 310: see Figure 10(a)); the plurality of fins are sheet-like (see Figure 5, at least one of the lower two options) and are configured in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the flow channel (see Figure 5 and cf. Figure 10(a) where the wall structure surrounding each 310 is configured in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction (i.e. left right direction ) of the flow channel of 350); the plurality of fins are arranged in a staggered arrangement in the direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the flow channel and are arranged along the extending direction of the flow channel (see Figure 5 and cf. Figure 10(a) where the wall structure surrounding each 310 are arranged in a staggered arrangement in front-back direction and arranged along the left right direction).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, YU further teaches wherein the flow channel inlet and the flow channel outlet of the flow channel face a same direction (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner); a notch is formed at a part of the pipe body located between the flow channel inlet and the flow channel outlet (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner); a part of the pipe body adjacent to an inner side of the notch has a stopping surface (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner).
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.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU (CN110418550B: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of Kenney (US-20160036104-A1).
Regarding claim 15, YU further teaches wherein the at least one fin includes a plurality of fins (wall structure surrounding each 310: see Figure 10(b)); the plurality of fins are grouped in pairs and are arranged at intervals along an extending direction of the flow channel (see in Figure 10(b) where the plurality of fins are grouped in pairs and are arranged at intervals along the left right direction).
YU does not teach that a flow direction of a fluid in the flow channel toward the flow channel outlet is defined as a downstream direction and a flow direction of the fluid in the flow channel toward the flow channel inlet is defined as an upstream direction; a distance between two ends of each of the pairs of the plurality of fins facing the upstream direction is larger than a distance between two another ends of each of the pairs of the plurality of fins facing the downstream direction.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for cooling devices to have downstream channels that are narrower than the upstream channels, as evidenced by Kenney, see Kenney’s Figure 2 where the heat exchanger (14) comprises a flow channel (20) that includes a plurality of fins (36, 38, 40, and 42) wherein the distance between the fins (42) in the downstream section (34(4)) is narrower than the distance between the fins (36) in upstream section (32(1)), see Kenney’s ¶ [0040].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plurality of fins of YU with a flow direction of a fluid in the flow channel toward the flow channel outlet is defined as a downstream direction and a flow direction of the fluid in the flow channel toward the flow channel inlet is defined as an upstream direction; a distance between two ends of each of the pairs of the plurality of fins facing the upstream direction is larger than a distance between two another ends of each of the pairs of the plurality of fins facing the downstream direction, since as evidenced by Kenney, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of providing uniform temperature distribution across the surface of the heat, see Kenney’s ¶ [0041].
Regarding claim 20, YU as modified further teaches wherein the flow channel inlet and the flow channel outlet of the flow channel face a same direction (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner); a notch is formed at a part of the pipe body located between the flow channel inlet and the flow channel outlet (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner); a part of the pipe body adjacent to an inner side of the notch has a stopping surface (see YU’s Figure 10(a) annotated by Examiner).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 containing allowable subject matter over the prior art (i.e. Bosak US20160106003A1). Bosak teaches a liquid-cooling radiator (100: see Figures 1-3), comprising: a heat sink (101 and 215 ), having a contact portion (lower surface of 101); the contact portion has at least one heat pipe opening (225); the at least one heat pipe opening communicates with the contact portion (see Figures 2 and 3); a pressure device (230), disposed in the contact portion (lower surface of 101) ; and a heat pipe (140), disposed in the contact portion and having a pipe body (210) that is flexible (see ¶ [0059]); the pipe body has a flow channel (inner flow channel of 140). However, Bosak fails to teach that the heat sink includes a heat pipe chamber; wherein the heat pipe chamber has an inlet/outlet port;
wherein the flow channel has a flow channel inlet and a flow channel outlet matching with the inlet/outlet port; wherein the cooling surface faces the contact portion and the abutting surface faces the pressure device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (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 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights