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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Official Notice
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not traversed the Examiner’s Official Notice with respect to claim 4 and, accordingly, a thermal interface material which is a thermal pad is taken as admitted prior art.
See MPEP 2144.03(C)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Jafari et al. (US 7,254,033 – hereinafter, “Jafari”) and further in view of Yang (US 2013/0128463).
With respect to claims 1, 7-8 AAPA teaches (In Fig 1 of the present drawings) a test apparatus (1) including electronic elements (14) on an electronic carrier board (13) of the test apparatus.
AAPA fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat dissipation structure, comprising: bonding portions disposed on the electronic elements; and a board body having a first side and a second side opposing the first side, wherein the board body is disposed on the bonding portions via the first side and formed with heat transfer members on the second side, a frame extending outward from a periphery of the board body and being hollow annular in shape; and a mounting hole formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits (Cl. 1), wherein each of the heat transfer members is a plurality of fins spaced apart from and parallel to each other (Cl. 7) and further comprising a blower member disposed above the second side of the board body and blowing air toward the heat transfer members (Cl. 8).
Jafari, however, teaches (In Fig 2) a heat dissipation structure, comprising: bonding portions (130) disposed on electronic elements (128); and a board body (Base of heat sink 132) having a first side (Adjacent 130) and a second side opposing the first side, wherein the board body is disposed on the bonding portions via the first side and formed with heat transfer members (Fins) on the second side (See Fig 2, see also, Col. 4, ll. 47-56), wherein each of the heat transfer members is a plurality of fins spaced apart from and parallel to each other (See Fig 2, see also Col. 4, ll. 47-56 , “finned heat sink”) and further comprising a blower member (134) disposed above the second side of the board body and blowing air toward the heat transfer members (See Fig 2, see also Col. 5, ll. 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jafari with that of AAPA such that AAPA includes a heat dissipation structure, comprising: bonding portions disposed on the electronic elements; and a board body having a first side and a second side opposing the first side, wherein the board body is disposed on the bonding portions via the first side and formed with heat transfer members on the second side, wherein each of the heat transfer members is a plurality of fins spaced apart from and parallel to each other and further comprising a blower member disposed above the second side of the board body and blowing air toward the heat transfer members as taught by Jafari, since doing so would provide cooling to the electronic elements of AAPA.
With respect to the limitations, a frame extending outward from a periphery of the board body and being hollow annular in shape; and a mounting hole formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits, Yang teaches (In Fig 1) a frame (22) extending outward from a periphery of a board body (11) and being hollow annular in shape (See Fig 1); and a mounting hole (261) formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits (The mounting hole 261 is capable of being used to install thermocouple circuits).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with that of modified AAPA such that modified AAPA includes a frame extending outward from a periphery of the board body and being hollow annular in shape; and a mounting hole formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits, as taught by Yang, since doing so would provide mechanical protection to the board body of Jafari.
Regarding the limitations, “formed by bending from the frame”, these limitations are product-by-process limitations and even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and 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 process1.
With respect to claim 4, AAPA as modified by Jafari teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein each of the bonding portions is a thermal pad.
It is admitted prior art that a thermal interface material (bonding material) which is a thermal pad (See the above Examiner’s Note).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the Examiner’s Official Notice with that of AAPA as modified by Jafari such that the bonding portions of Jafari are a thermal pad, since doing so would allow for the bonding portions of Jafari to provide some degree of shock absorption between the board body and the electronic elements to prevent damage to the electronic elements during movement of the apparatus.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Jafari in view of Yang and further in view of Aizawa (US 2022/0334428 – hereinafter, “Aizawa”).
With respect to claims 2-3, AAPA as modified by Jafari and Yang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein a material of the board body is metal alloy (Cl. 2), wherein the metal alloy is aluminum alloy (Cl. 3).
Aizawa, however, teaches a heat sink which is made of an aluminum alloy (¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aizawa with that of AAPA as modified by Jafari, such that the board body of modified AAPA is made of an aluminum alloy, as taught by Aizawa, since doing so would allow for the board body to be made of a light weight, thermally conductive, and relatively inexpensive material.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Consequently, AAPA, Jafari, Aizawa and Li, taken alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach or suggest at least the technical features of "a frame extending outward from a periphery of the board body and being hollow annular in shape" and "a mounting hole formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits" as recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application. Moreover, the Office Action has not established a sufficient rationale that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the teachings of AAPA, Jafari, Aizawa and Li to arrive at the claimed invention, let alone achieve the technical effect brought about by the present application.
Based at least on the above reasons, the combinations of AAPA with Jafari, Aizawa or Li do not render the Applicant's claimed invention obvious. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 7-8 are patentable over the cited references.” (Present remarks pages 6-7) the Examiner agrees and notes the previous rejection to claim 1 in view of AAPA and Jafari has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds rejection is provided above in view of AAPA, Jafari, and Yang where Yang is believed to resolve any deficiencies of AAPA and Jafari. Indeed, Yang teaches (In Fig 1) a frame (22) extending outward from a periphery of a board body (11) and being hollow annular in shape (See Fig 1); and a mounting hole (261) formed by bending from the frame for installing thermocouple circuits (The mounting hole 261 is capable of being used to install thermocouple circuits). And while Yang does not disclose that the mounting hole is formed by bending from the frame, this particular limitation is a product-by-process limitation anticipated by Yang (See the above rejection to claim 1).
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of AAPA, Jafari, and Yang.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Prosecution Insights