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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed 2/11/2026. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the other ends of the two straight segments are not communicated with each other in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation “the other ends of the two straight segments are not communicated with each other” which is not described in the specification or drawings since “the other ends” are in fluid communication.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same end" in line 4 and “the other ends” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0254895 hereinafter “Vakilimoghaddam”) in view of Martin (US Publication No.: 2006/0243431 hereinafter “Martin”).
With respect to claim 1, Vakilimoghaddam discloses a cooling device (Fig. 4), comprising: a first plate body (Figs. 4-5, first plate 18), wherein a first surface of the first plate body (Fig. 4, top surface of 18) is provided with a flow channel for accommodating a fluid (Para 0052 and Fig. 5, flow channel 72 for a fluid), the flow channel comprises straight segments (Fig. 5, straight flow channel between ribs 70) and one bent segment (Fig. 5, bent segment at turnaround zones 78), the at least two straight segments are communicated via the at least one bent segment (Fig. 5, fluid in straight segments 72 is connected by bent segment 78); and a second plate body (Fig. 4, plate 12); wherein the first surface of the first plate body is in contact with the second plate body (Fig. 4, top of 18 is in contact with second plate 12).
Vakilimoghaddam does not disclose the two straight segments are communicated at the same end via the one bent segment while the other ends of the two straight segments are not communicated with each other, and the two straight segments are separated by a channel partition.
Martin teaches a plate cooling device with a basic U-shaped design that has two straight segments are communicated at the same end via the one bent segment, and the two straight segments are separated by a channel partition that are not communicated at the other end (Fig. 7, partition 71 separates two straight segments in 24 that are communicated at one end at bend at 74 and not communicated with inlets and outlets at 32 and 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the flow path of the heat exchanger of Vakilimoghaddam with the one basic U shaped flow path as taught by Martin to reduce the size, cost while having improved temperature drop for its relative size (Para 0004).
With respect to claim 2, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 1. It is noted that claim 2 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. wherein the first plate body and the second plate body are formed by casting) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 3, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein the first plate body and the second plate body are integrally formed by brazing (Para 0023).
It is noted that claim 3 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. are integrally formed by brazing) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 4, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 2 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein the first plate body and the second plate body are integrally formed by brazing (Para 0023).
It is noted that claim 4 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. are integrally formed by brazing) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 6, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein a bottom surface of the flow channel is provided with a rib structure (Fig. 5, rib structure 76 are on a bottom surface of the flow channel).
Vakilimoghaddam is silent to the rib structure being a micro rib structure. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The configuration of the size of the claimed rib structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed micro-rib was significant.
With respect to claim 7, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 3 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein there are a plurality of rib structures (Fig. 5, rib structure 76 are on a bottom surface of the flow channel), the plurality of rib structures are arranged within the flow channel in a staggered manner (Fig. 5, ribs 76 are staggered).
Vakilimoghaddam is silent to the rib structure being a micro rib structure. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The configuration of the size of the claimed rib structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed micro-rib was significant.
With respect to claim 8, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 4 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein there are a plurality of rib structures (Fig. 5, rib structure 76 are on a bottom surface of the flow channel), the plurality of rib structures are arranged within the flow channel in a staggered manner (Fig. 5, ribs 76 are staggered).
Vakilimoghaddam is silent to the rib structure being a micro rib structure. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The configuration of the size of the claimed rib structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed micro-rib was significant.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0254895 hereinafter “Vakilimoghaddam”) in view of Martin (US Publication No.: 2006/0243431 hereinafter “Martin”) and further in view of Adachi (US Patent No.: 10,014,236).
With respect to claim 5, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam also discloses wherein an end of the flow channel is provided with an inlet and outlet nozzle (Figs. 3-4, 80 and 82 and Para 0047), and the inlet and outlet nozzle is configured for the fluid entering into and exiting from the flow channel (Para 0047).
Vakilimoghaddam does not disclose and wherein the inlet and outlet nozzle is connected to the flow channel at an obtuse angle.
Adachi teaches an inlet and outlet nozzle is connected to a flow channel at an obtuse angle (Fig. 8, 23h and 23g and Col. 6, lines 49-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the angle at which the inlet and outlet nozzles are connected to the flow channel of Gotou with an obtuse angle as taught by Adachi to suppress vortexes that can occur near the inlets and outlets and aid in fluid distribution (Col. 6, lines 49-Col. 7 line 18).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0254895 hereinafter “Vakilimoghaddam”) in view of Martin (US Publication No.: 2006/0243431 hereinafter “Martin”), Adachi (US Patent No.: 10,014,236) and further in view of Gotou et al. (US Publication No.: 2013/0153186 hereinafter “Gotou”).
With respect to claim 9, Vakilimoghaddam, Martin and Adachi teach the cooling device according to claim 5 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam does not disclose wherein a first mounting hole is provided within the first plate body, the first mounting hole is located in at least one of the plurality of micro rib structures, and the first mounting hole is configured to mount a heating device.
Gotou teaches adding mounting holes provided within the first plate body (Fig. 1, mounting holes 46) the first mounting hole is located in at least one of the plurality of micro rib structures (Fig. 1, mounting hole 46 on rib 40), and the first mounting hole is configured to mount a heating device. (Figs. 1-3, heating device 12 is installed with mounting holes and Para 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cooling device of Vakilimoghaddam with the mounting holes as taught by Gotou to maintain a proper connection of the heating device with varying temperatures and a desired plate thickness (Para 0008).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilimoghaddam et al. (US Publication No.: 2021/0254895 hereinafter “Vakilimoghaddam”) in view of Martin (US Publication No.: 2006/0243431 hereinafter “Martin”) and further in view of Ranjan et al. (US Publication No.: 2023/0314091 hereinafter “Ranjan”).
With respect to claim 10, Vakilimoghaddam and Martin teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Vakilimoghaddam discloses wherein a first surface of the second plate body is in contact with the first surface of the first plate body (Fig. 4, top of 18 is in contact with bottom of 12).
Vakilimoghaddam does not disclose a strip-shaped protrusion is provided on the first surface of the second plate body, the strip-shaped protrusion overlaps with a part of the flow channel, and an extension direction of the strip-shaped protrusion is the same as an extension direction of the flow channel.
Ranjan teaches a top plate that has a strip-shaped protrusion that overlaps with a part of a flow channel and an extension direction of the strip-shaped protrusion is (Figs. 8a-8f, protrusions 602a, 602b, 602e, 602f and Para 0038-0039). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the top plate of Vakilimoghaddam with protrusions that extend into a part of a flow channel as taught by Ranjan to increase surface area and heat transfer within the flow channel (Para 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the Martin reference teaches the newly added claim limitations.
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 CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763