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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Currently, claims 6-7 are cancelled and claims 1-5 and 8-9 are pending.
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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou et al. (US Publication No.: 2013/0153186 hereinafter “Gotou”) in view of Salamon et al. (US Publication No.: 2022/0412662 hereinafter “Salamon”) and further in view of Dai et al. (US Publication No.: 2022/0392776 hereinafter “Dai”).
With respect to claim 1, Gotou discloses a cooling device (Figs. 1-3), comprising: a first plate (Figs. 1-3, first plate 20), wherein a first surface of the first plate is provided with a runner (Figs. 1-3, runner 50 for fluid flow path 42), the runner is configured for accommodating a fluid (Figs. 1-3, fluid flow path 42), and the runner has a zigzag shape (Fig. 2, shows flow path 42 has a zig-zag shape in 50); and a second plate (Fig. 1, top plate 26); wherein the first surface of the first plate is in contact with the second plate (Fig. 4, top plate 26 sits on a first surface of 20 at 50).
Gotou does not disclose wherein a guide strip is disposed at a bent segment of the runner, and an extending direction of the guide strip is substantially consistent with an extending direction of the runner and the guide strip is located inside the runner and is at a certain distance from an inner wall of the runner.
Salamon teaches a guide strip disposed at a bent segment of a fluid flow channel that is spaced from an inner wall (Fig. 5, guide strip 622). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the bent segment of the fluid flow path of Gotou with a guide strip as taught by Salamon to narrow the diameter of the channel to introduce additional wall surface area to enhance heat transfer and reduce channel width areas to help the formation of fluid slugs (Para 0080).
Gotou does not disclose wherein the inlet-and-outlet port is in communication with the runner at an obtuse angle wherein a bottom surface of the runner in a first plate is flat, and the bottom surface of the runner is level with a bottom surface of the inlet-and-outlet port.
Dai teaches an inlet and outlet port is in communication with a runner at an obtuse angle an a bottom of the runner is flat and level with a bottom surface of the inlet-and-outlet ports (Para 0028 and Fig. 1, runners 22 are at an obtuse angle and are flat on the bottom with a flat bottom plate 2). 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 ports are in communication with the runner of Gotou with an obtuse angle as taught by Dai to enlarge the contact area while improving the seal on the channel (Para 0028).
With respect to claim 2, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein the first plate and the second plate are molded by cast-molding (Para 0034-0037).
It is noted that claim 2 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. are molded by cast-molding) 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, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 2 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein the first plate and the second plate are integrated by brazing (Para 0043-0044, 0046 & 0051-0053).
It is noted that claim 3 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. are integrated 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, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein the first plate and the second plate are integrated by brazing (Para 0043-0044, 0046 & 0051-0053).
It is noted that claim 4 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. are integrated 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 5, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein the runner comprises a plurality of straight segments (Fig. 2, straight segments in 16) and a plurality of bent segments (Fig. 2, bent segments in 42 around 48a), the plurality of straight segments are arranged in parallel (Fig. 2, fluid flow segments in 16 are parallel), and the plurality of straight segments are communicated with each other head to tail through the plurality of bent segments (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein a side surface of the runner is provided with a rib structure (Fig. 3, rib structure 38 and 40).
Gotou 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 9, Gotou, Salamon and Dai teach the cooling device according to claim 8 as discussed above. Gotou also discloses wherein the first plate is provided with a first mounting hole (Figs. 1-2, mounting holes 46), the first mounting hole is configured for installing a heating device (Figs. 1-3, 12 is installed with mounting holes and Para 0034), and the micro-rib structure is arranged around the first mounting hole (Figs. 2-3, ribs 38 and 40 are arranged around holes 46).
It is noted that the phrases “is configured for installing a heating device” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim. Therefore, applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the Adaci reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Adaci reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly added Dai reference theses the newly added claim limitations towards a runner at an obtuse angle.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights