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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig.2: the area where reference character “150” is located should be reference character “160”. The issue was outlined in the non-final Office action of 01/02/2026 and resolved in the drawings filed on 03/19/2026, but the drawings of 07/05/2026 presents the issue again.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0134]-[0136], [0138], [0271]-[0275], [0277]: all instances of “drainage groove” should be amended to “discharge groove” for consistent claim nomenclature.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the specification and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the specification, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 53, 60, and 63 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 53 Lns.27-28: the clause “of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” should be amended to recite “each of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 53 Ln.33: the clause “to discharge water guided” should be amended to recite “to discharge the water guided” since line 23 of the claim provides the antecedent basis for the “water”.
See next page→
Claim 60 Ln.15: “the top surface of a lowest one” should be amended to recite “the top surface of the lowest one” since the antecedent basis is established in line 14 of claim 60.
Claims 60 and 63: every instance of “the two heat dissipation convert plates” should be amended to recite “the two of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” for consistent claim nomenclature.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 53, 60, 63, and 65-66 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.
a) Claim 53 Lns.10-11: “between two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates”. While it is believed that the clause is supposed to say “between two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, the Office notes that based on Applicant’s disclosure, the limitations could be referring to a completely different group that is different from the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates”. The Office also notes that both the non-final Office action and final Office action outlined similar issues.
b) Claim 53 Lns.36-37: “the drainage surface”, as outlined in lines 22-23 of the claim, a plurality of drainage surfaces are recited (i.e., by stating that “each of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates has a drainage surface”, a plurality of drainage surfaces are recited), but then lines 31-39 of claim 53 appear to interchange between the structure of each of the two heat dissipation convert plates individually and the at least two heat dissipation convert plates as a whole without any consistency, so is “the drainage surface” (singular form), as currently recited, supposed to in linked to each of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates individually or to them as a whole? In other words, it cannot be readily seen what “the drainage surface” is supposed to be linked to (i.e., is the limitation supposed to be linked to a respective, and thus singular, heat dissipation convert plate or the at least two heat dissipation convert plates as a whole? Because if it is supposed to be linked to them as a whole, then “drainage surface” should be in plural form).
c) Claim 53 Lns.34 and 38-39: it is unclear as to what the intended scope of “the heat dissipation convert plate” is supposed to encompass. For example, the limitation could be “a heat dissipation convert plate” (i.e., a separate “heat dissipation convert plate”), “a corresponding heat dissipation convert plate of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, “the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” as a whole, “a heat dissipation convert plate of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, “two adjacent heat dissipation convert plate”, etc.? The Office notes that each interpretation provides a different scope and that because there are too many options that the “heat dissipation convert plate” is linked to, the intended scope of the limitation is indefinite.
d) Claims 60 and 63: it is unclear as to what the intended scope for “a limit convert plate” (and thus all instances of “the limit convert plate” by association) is. Claim 53 provides the antecedent basis for “a same limit convert plate” (see line 11 of claim 53), but is the “limit convert plate” as claimed in claims 60 and 63 supposed to linked to the one recited in claim 53 or is it supposed to be a separate “limit convert plate”. The intended scope of the limitation is indefinite based on the given disclosure.
e) Claim 60 Ln.10: it is unclear as to what the intended scope of “two of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” is supposed to be. Are the “two of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” different from the “two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates” of claim 53 or are they supposed to be the same as the “two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates” of claim 53? Due to the disclosure and claims having multiple heat dissipation convert plates, the grouping is unclear, and thus the relationship among the “two of the at last two heat dissipation convert plates”, the “two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates”, and “the heat dissipation convert plate” of claim 53 is also unclear, which makes the intended scope indefinite.
f) Claim 60 Lns.10-11: the limitation “on opposite sides of a block” is believed to be indefinite because as outlined above, since the relationship of the “two of the at least two heat dissipation convert plates” is indefinite, it is also indefinite as to whether “a block” is supposed to refer to the block recited in claim 53 (see claim 53, line 38) or if it is supposed to be referred to a completely different and distinct block.
g) Claims 60 and 63: it is unclear as to what the relationship between “one of the two heat dissipation convert plate” and “the heat dissipation convert plate” is supposed be. As outlined above, the claims constantly refer to the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” without making it clear as to whether the limitations are with respect to the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” as a whole, a group of the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, or individual plates of the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, and thus making the intended scope indefinite.
h) Claim 63 Ln.6: the limitation “of the heat dissipation convert plate” is believed to be indefinite. As outlined in the explanation provided for claims 53 and 60 above, since the limitation “the heat dissipation convert plate” is believed to be indefinite, it is also unclear as to what “of the heat dissipation convert plate” is supposed to be in reference to (i.e., the limitation “of the heat dissipation convert plate” inherits the same issues outlined for claims 53 and 60). As outlined above, what is the relationship of “the heat dissipation convert plate” in relation to the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates”, the “two adjacent heat dissipation convert plates”, the “two of the heat dissipation convert plates”, and the “one of the two heat dissipation convert plates”? The Office notes that the claims need to be properly amended to make the relationship of the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” and all limitations associated with the “at least two heat dissipation convert plates” definite.
Claims 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for inheriting, at least, the above deficiencies outlined in independent claim 53.
The Office also notes that due to the outstanding number and due to the severity of the 112 issues outlined above, no prior art rejection can be provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of 07/05/2026 have been fully considered, but notes that Applicant’s remarks do not formally respond to any specific issue, and thus the Office cannot provide a formal response. As outlined above, there are still an outstanding number of issues that Applicant needs to address in order to put the claims in proper condition for examination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights