DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 9/5/2025.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-24 are new.
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.
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, 3, 10-11, 16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okami (US 2021/0230742) in view of Scannell (US 5,292,298) and Smith (US 2018/0119762).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Okami teaches a roll-to-roll deposition system ([0104] and Fig. 2, deposition apparatus #50) comprising: an evaporation unit ([0111] and Fig. 2, units #57-#60 can comprise vapor deposition units); a plurality of tension rollers ([0107] and Fig. 2, rollers #55 and #61); and a drum ([0104] and Fig. 2, can roll #56), disposed between the plurality of tension rollers (see Fig. 2) and the evaporator evaporation unit (see Fig. 2), the drum comprising: a cooling drum ([0115] and Fig. 3, inner drum #71) comprising: an exterior region; an interior region (see Fig. 3); a turbulating surface feature (Fig. 3, corners of #80 would cause turbulent flow); a first fluid channel partially defined by the exterior region and the interior region ([0115] and Fig. 3, coolant circulation channel #80), wherein the first fluid channel forms a helical channel around a central axis of the cooling drum ([0116]); and a first inlet in fluid communication with a first outlet by the first fluid channel (Fig. 3, inlet/outlet on left side of figure for #80).
Okami does not teach wherein the drum comprises a shell having gas slits.
However, Scannell teaches wherein the drum comprises a shell having gas slits (Fig. 2, slits formed in shell #18 between ribs #14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the fluid channel/shell structure of Okami to comprise that of Scannell to enable individual descaling of the fluid channels (Scannell – C2, L11-15) in order to save time and materials (Scannell – C1, L58-68).
Okami modified by Scannell does not teach wherein the turbulating surface feature is disposed on a sidewall of the first fluid channel.
However, Smith teaches this limitation (Smith – [0022] and [0027]: supplementary structures inside a cooling duct).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Okami apparatus to comprise the turbulating surface features of Smith in order to increase surface area of a cooling fluid and increasing the channel stiffness (Smith – [0022]).
Smith and the instant invention both relate to cooling structures with enhanced efficiency and gyroidal turbulating features created by additive manufacturing, thus are regarded as analogous art for purposes of obviousness.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Okami modified by Scannell does not teach wherein the turbulating surface feature comprises a gyroid feature.
However, Smith teaches this limitation (Smith – [0027]: supplementary structures inside a cooling duct can comprise a gyroid structure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Okami apparatus to comprise the turbulating surface features of Smith in order to increase surface area of a cooling fluid and increasing the channel stiffness (Smith – [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Okami teaches wherein a thickness of the exterior region is less than 10 millimeters (“region” is not so limited to the entirety of the cooling drum, thus “region” can reasonably be interpreted as any arbitrary sub-division of the cooling drum. As an arbitrarily small area of the cooling drum could be designated as the “exterior region”, it would fall within the claimed range of “less than 10 mm”).
Regarding claim 21, Okami modified by Scannell does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Smith teaches wherein the turbulating surface feature comprises a plurality of periodic turbulating features disposed on the sidewall of the first fluid channel and configured to reduce laminar flow of a coolant through the first fluid channel (Smith – [0022] and [0027]: inducing turbulent flow would naturally reduce laminar flow, and can comprise gyroid structures as disclosed in the instant application).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Okami apparatus to comprise the turbulating surface features of Smith in order to increase surface area of a cooling fluid and increasing the channel stiffness (Smith – [0022]).
Regarding claim 22, the entire claim is regarded as functional language relating to the use of the apparatus. Particularly, Reynolds number is a highly fluid dependent quantity- it requires the fluid density and dynamic/kinematic viscosity of the fluid. Additionally, it requires a particular flow speed of the fluid. The fluid used in the apparatus is not structurally limiting of the claim- it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention. If the prior art discloses the same/similar structure that produces the claimed turbulent flow, it is regarded as capable of operating in the claimed way regardless of whether the particular range of Reynolds number is disclosed.
As Smith teaches a gyroid turbulating structure (Smith – [0022], [0027]) similar to that as claimed, it is regarded as capable of operating with a fluid that would have a Reynolds number in the claimed range.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okami (US 2021/0230742), Scannell (US 5,292,298), and Smith (US 2018/0119762), as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 above, further in view of Keller (US 2019/0152713).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Okami teaches wherein the cooling drum is a monolithic drum (see Fig. 3, depicted as a unitary structure).
Modified Okami does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling drum is made of copper or aluminum alloy (Okami teaches a generic metal [0115]).
However, Keller teaches wherein a cooling drum is made of aluminum (Keller – [0026], [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the rollers of modified Okami from aluminum in order to prevent material damage (Keller – [0024]).
Claims 4-7, 9, 13-15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okami (US 2021/0230742), Scannell (US 5,292,298), and Smith (US 2018/0119762), as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 above, further in view of Bolandi (US 2001/0003901).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Okami does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bolandi teaches wherein a second fluid channel radially offset from the first cooling fluid channel, the second fluid channel forming a helical channel around the central axis (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, channels #40A and #40B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to duplicate the first fluid channel of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Okami does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bolandi teaches wherein the second fluid channel connects a second fluid inlet to a second fluid outlet (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, #40B comprises second inlet and second outlet).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to duplicate the first fluid channel of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Okami teaches wherein the first inlet is disposed within a first face of the cooling drum (Okami – Fig. 3, inlet for #80 on left face).
Modified Okami does not teach a second inlet.
However, Bolandi teaches a second inlet (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, #40B comprises second inlet and second outlet).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to duplicate the first fluid channel of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]).
Thus, as a combination, since Okami already teaches wherein the first inlet/outlet are in a first face (see Fig. 3), a PHOSITA would logically implement the second inlet/outlet of Bolandi in the same face as Okami as a direct extension of its teachings.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Okami does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Okami teaches one inlet/outlet on the same side).
However, Bolandi teaches wherein the first inlet and second outlet are disposed within a first face and a second inlet and first outlet are disposed within a second face (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, describes counter-flows such that an adjacent set of openings for #40A/#40B would be a first inlet and second outlet, and vice versa for the other end).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to duplicate the first fluid channel of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Okami does not teach the added limitations of the claim (Okami teaches one inlet/outlet on the same side).
However, Bolandi teaches wherein the first inlet is disposed proximate a first face and the first outlet is disposed proximate a second face (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, each of #40A/#40B goes from an outer portion of plate #34 to an inner portion of plate #34, does not circle back to itself as in Okami).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the directionality of the first fluid channel of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]).
Regarding claims 23-24, modified Okami does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bolandi teaches a plurality of fluid channels (Bolandi – [0023] and Fig. 2, #40A and B) such that the limitation: “wherein the cooling drum further comprises a third fluid channel radially offset from the first fluid channel and the second fluid channel and partially defined by the exterior region and the interior region, the third fluid channel forming a helical channel around the central axis of the cooling drum” is merely a duplication of parts of modified Okami.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide additional fluid channels of modified Okami similar to Bolandi in order to allow for a variety of cooling flow patterns to improve temperature cycling performance and uniform heat transfer (Bolandi – [0023]) and as a matter of obvious duplication of parts. It has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okami (US 2021/0230742), Scannell (US 5,292,298), and Smith (US 2018/0119762), as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 above, further in view of Toba (US 2005/0175952).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 10-11, 16, and 21-22 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Okami does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Toba teaches wherein a distance between adjacent elements in a cooling structure is between about 1 millimeter and about 5 millimeters (Toba – [0049]: 0.1 mm - 2 mm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the distance between the shell and a curved surface of the exterior region of modified Okami to between the claimed range, since Toba teaches such a range. The courts have held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning amended claims 1 and 11 have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Smith remedies any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that the prior art (primarily Bolandi) does not teach the features of the claim because it appears to depict “square pattern spirals” (Remarks, pg. 10). Respectfully, the Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant is focusing too narrowly on the teachings of the references individually rather than considering the combination of references as assembled by the Examiner. Since Bolandi is merely relied upon to teach additional flow channels, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would seek to duplicate the helical channels of Okami, not merely insert square pattern spiral channels.
The courts have held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718