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 .
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 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.
Examiner Note
The cites to the drawings, specification and abstract are to a single occurrence of the issue. Applicant should carefully review the drawings, specification and abstract to insure that other occurrences of the issue are also being addressed.
The instant application is the combination of four (4) Chinese application which have been combined into a single international application resulting in the instant national stage application. While progress has been made, Applicant still needs to unify the element numbering within the instant application resulting from merging the four Chinese application into a single application.
The drawings and the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Due to the number of changes the Examiner anticipates will have to be made, a substitute specification will be required.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks in the response to the non-final action dated 1/2/26 are not addressing any issue specifically. Therefore there is no specific argument that the Examiner can provide a response for.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 53, lines 22-23 requires “both sides of the at least two heat dissipation convert plate are provided with a discharge groove respectively” (emphasis added) and refers thereafter to “the discharge groove.” The Examiner understands that “the discharge groove” has antecedence in and is further defining the “the discharge grove” and therefore applies to “each discharge groove” that is actually being claimed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “100” has been used to designate both heat dissipation plate (fig. 1, ¶[0118]) and in fig. 12, the combination of 131 (connector), 132 (heat dissipation plate body 110?), and 133 (microchannel heat exchanger 200?).
reference characters "1121" (“opening”, fig. 12, ¶[0166]) and "3114" (“accommodation cavity” fig. 9, ¶[0159]) have both been used to designate what appears to be the same element with two different labels.
reference character “120” has been used to designate the heat dissipation convert plate (fig. 1, ¶[0118]), the heat exchange tube component (fig. 27, ¶[0219]) and the heat dissipation component (abstract, line 2).
reference characters "122" (“heat exchange tube component”, fig. 19, ¶[0212]) and "200" (“heat exchanger, fig. 7, ¶[0118]) have both been used to designate what appears to be the same element with two different labels.
reference character “130” has been used to designate both the drainage groove (fig. 1, ¶[0134]) and the heat dissipation plate (fig. 13a, changed to element 100 in ¶[0169]).
reference character “132” has been used to designate both (figs. 12 and 13, ¶[0171], changed to “heat dissipation plate body 110”) and notch (fig. 32, ¶[0280]).
reference characters "133" (fig. 12, ¶[0198]) and "200" (fig. 7, ¶[0118]) have both been used to designate the microchannel heat exchanger.
reference characters "141" (fig. 28, ¶[0254]) and "410" (“accommodation cavity”, fig.19, ¶[0210]) have both been used to designate the avoidance hole.
The drawings are objected to because in figs. 2, 4, and 6, reference numeral “1311” needs to be changed to “120”. (note that “1311” was previously used for the “heat dissipation convert plate” which has now been renumbered to “120”).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Not filed on a separate sheet (now at end of the substitute specification);
Not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (currently 175 word); and
Page 57, line 2, “30” should “100”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“112” should be “3112” (paras. [0246] and [0250]);
“113” should be “3113” (paras. [0246], [0272] and [0277]);
“114” should be “3114” (paras. [0214]-[0216], [0246] and [0250]);
Para. [0119] (also [0129], [0130], [0131], [0134], [0162], [0277] and abstract), states “two adjacently arranged heat dissipation convert plates 120.” How can “heat dissipation convert plates 120” be adjacent when block 140 is in between two of the heat dissipation convert plates 120 (see fig. 1)? Also see the amendment to claim 53, line 5;
Para. [0134], states “[t]he drainage surfaces 121 of two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates 120 are both connected to the drainage groove 130.” How can the drainage surfaces 121 of two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates 120 be connected to the drainage groove 130 when block 140 is therebetween (see fig. 1)?
Para. [0162], page 22, line 17, “holees” should be “holes”;
Para. [0167], page 23, line 16, “the box body 300” should be “the bottom box 310” (note: the box body 300 includes the bottom box 310 and the box cover 320);
Para. [0219], page 34, lines 12-13, should “the heat exchange tube component 120” be “the heat exchange tube component 122” (or “200”)? and
Para. [0248], page 41, line 12, “heat exchange tube 120” should be either “heat exchange tube 200” or “heat exchange tube 122”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 53, 60, 63, 65, and 66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 53, line 23, “plate” should be “plates”; and
Claim 60, line 12, “the lowest one” lacks antecedent basis and should be “a lowest one”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 53, 60, 63, 65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 53, lines 24-25 requires “the discharge groove is configured to discharge the water flowing down the drainage surface from the heat dissipation plate.” The specification at para. [0009] provides “the drainage groove is configured to discharge
water on the drainage surfaces from the heat dissipation convert plates” and not from “the heat dissipation plate” as claim 53 requires. Para. [0125] further elaborates and states “[t]he drainage surface 121 can be an inclined surface or a curved surface, which allows the condensate water, when in contact with the inclined surface or the curved surface, to flow along an extension direction of the drainage surface 121 due to its own gravity; and thus, discharging the condensate water from the heat dissipation convert plate 120.”
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 53, 60, 63, 65, and 66 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.
Claim 53, line 4 requires “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” and lines 12-13 (and occurrences thereafter) require “a heat dissipation convert plate.” Are “a heat dissipation convert plate” of lines 12-13 part of “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” of line 4?
Claim 53, lines 8-9 requires “either one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates.” The Examiner understands that “either one” means “one or the other” as a minimum. The Examiner’s understanding is that the temperature-and-humidity sensor 160 has to be no higher than of either one the at least two heat dissipation convert plates 120 that is close to the temperature-and-humidity sensor 160 so that an electronic element can sit on the heat exchange contact surface 120a without interfering with the temperature-and-humidity sensor 160 (see para. [0130], “the temperature-and-humidity sensor 160 is arranged to be close to the drainage surface 121 of any one of the two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates 120”);
Claim 53, lines 22-23 requires “both sides of the at least two heat dissipation convert plate[s] are provided with a discharge groove respectively.” Does this mean that there is a “first” discharge groove on a first side of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates and a “second” discharge groove on a second side of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates (so there are at least two discharge grooves required of the invention), or does both sides of each of the at least two heat dissipation convert plate[s] are provided with a discharge groove respectively (so there are at least four discharge grooves required by the invention)?
Claim 60, lines 9-10 requires “adjacent heat dissipation convert plates of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates.” How are the at least two heat dissipation convert plates adjacent to each other when block 140 is disclosed as being in between (see fig. 1)?
Claim 60, lines 10-11 requires “the discharge groove is formed between the block and an adjacent one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” and Claim 53, lines 22-23 requires “both sides of the at least two heat dissipation convert plate are provided with a discharge groove respectively.” Are each of the discharge groove of claim 53 formed between the block and an adjacent one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates?
Claim 60, lines 13-14 requires “a lowest one” and line 12, “the lowest one.” Are these the same or different elements being claimed?
Claim 63, line 4 and Claim 60, line12 each require “a top surface.” Should “a top surface” of claim 63 have antecedence in “a top surface” of claim 60?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This only applies if “top surface” of claim 65 has antecedence in “top surface” of claim 63.
Claim 63 lines 4-5 requires “a top surface of either one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” and Claim 60, lines 12-14 requires “a top surface of the block is lower than a top surface of the lowest one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates, or the top surface of the block is flush with the top surface of a lowest one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates.” In claim 65 the top surface relates to “either one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” whereas in claim 60, the top surface relates to a “lowest one of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner is not including any indication of allowable subject matter due to the claim issues raised in the instant action, above, which makes the scope of claim invention(s) unclear.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
RJH 5/6/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights