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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/3/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 3/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that neither independent claims require bonding by brazing. This is not found persuasive as dependent claims 13, 15, and 17 do require brazing and thus the claims do define two separate inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “from the to the first outer layer” in lines 3-4, and should recite --from the first outer layer--.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one of:” in line 1, and should recite --wherein at least one of :--.
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 1-10 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.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes the limitation will be treated under its merits.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable/ over Schalansky (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0231055) in view of Corcoran et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0180190, “Corcoran”).
Regarding claim 1, Schalansky discloses a multilayer heat transfer device (figs 7-9), said device comprising:
a multilayer body, wherein the multilayer body comprises:
a first outer layer (88A) comprising at least one first elongated recess (see annotated fig 9 below) formed therein;
a second outer layer (88J) comprising at least one second elongated recess (see annotated fig 9 below) formed therein, and
at least one interstitial layer (88B-88I) comprising at least one elongated interstitial slot (see annotated fig 9 below) formed therethrough,
wherein the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the at least one interstitial layer are stacked and bonded together having the at least one interstitial layer disposed between the first and second outer layer (fig 9), whereby the at least one first elongated recess in the first outer layer, the at least one second elongated recess in the second outer layer and the at least one elongated slot in the at least one interstitial layer are aligned and combine to form at least one deep narrow composite having a high height to width aspect ratio internally disposed and enclosed within the resulting multilayer body (fig 9).
However, Schalansky does not explicitly disclose microchannels, micro-sized elongated recesses, or micro-sized elongated slots. Corcoran discloses a heat transfer device wherein the channels are microchannels (¶0004). Corcoran teaches that microchannel are required for certain micro-sized applications (¶0003). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Schalansky to have the channels be microchannels in order to allow for cooling in micro-sized applications. This would result in micro-sized elongated recesses and micro-sized elongated slots.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky further discloses wherein the body further comprises a plurality of brazing layers (between surfaces 26 and 28, see ¶0070), each brazing layer comprising at least one elongated slot (between surfaces 26 and 28), wherein each brazing layer is disposed between the first outer layer and an adjacent one of the at least one interstitial layer (see fig 9)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. The limitations of “prior to the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the at least one interstitial layer being stacked and bonded together, the brazing layers are separate and independent from the to the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the at least one interstitial layer” is considered a product-by-process limitation. In product claims, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky further discloses wherein the at least one interstitial layer elongated slot comprises a plurality of interstitial layer support tabs (see annotated fig 7 below) that extend across the at least one interstitial elongated slot.
PNG
media_image2.png
488
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky further discloses wherein the at least one brazing layer elongated slot (between surfaces 26 and 28, see ¶0070) comprises a plurality of brazing layer support tabs (see annotated fig 7 below) that extend across the at least one brazing layer elongated slot.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky, as modified, further discloses wherein the at least one interstitial layer elongated slot (see annotated fig 9 below) comprises opposing intersecting and fluidly connected micro-sized elongated recesses (see annotated fig 9 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. The limitation of “prior to the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the at least one interstitial layer being stacked and bonded together, at least one face of at least one of the first outer layer, the second outer layer, and the at least one interstitial layer comprises one of the brazing layers disposed thereon such that the respective face is clad with the respective brazing layer” is considered a product-by-process limitations. In product claims, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky further discloses wherein the at least one brazing layer elongated slot (between surfaces 26 and 28, see ¶0070) comprises a plurality of brazing layer support tabs (see annotated fig 7 below) that extend across the at least one brazing layer elongated slot.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky, as modified, further discloses wherein the at least one interstitial layer elongated slot (see annotated fig 9 below of Schalansky) comprises opposing intersecting and fluidly connected micro-sized (as taught by Corcoran) elongated recesses (see annotated fig 9 below of Schalansky).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schalansky and Corcoran discloses all previous claim limitations. Schalansky, as modified, further discloses wherein the at least one interstitial layer elongated slot (see annotated fig 9 below of Schalansky) comprises a micro-size (as taught by Corcoran) elongated channel having a depth that is equal to a thickness T of the at least one interstitial layer (see annotated fig 9 below of Schalansky).
PNG
media_image5.png
824
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763