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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group l, corresponding to claims 1-3 and 5-13, in the reply filed on 6/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant recites “one or more grooves of said plurality” in claim 1 line 6 and “the grooves of said plurality” in claim 13 line 2. It appears as if this could be clarified by reciting “said plurality of grooves” in claims 1 and 13.
Applicant recites the phrase “which method comprises” in claim 1 line 2. The recited limitations are awkwardly recited and lacks proper antecedent basis since “a method” was already previously recited in claim 1 line 1. It appears as if this can be corrected to recite “electronic components, the method comprises”, or similar language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-3 and 5-13 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.’
Applicant recites “the microchannel type” in claim 1 line 1. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis.
Applicant recites having a first and second “plate-like body” throughout claims 1, 5, and 8-11. The structure applicant is intending to describe by the phrase “plate-like” is unclear and indefinite.
Applicant recites “in/from” in claim 1 line 4. It is unclear whether the recited limitations are intended to be claimed in the inclusive or alternative.
Applicant recites “the ends of the groove” in claim 1 line 9. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear. The phrase “the ends” lack proper antecedent basis since “ends” were never previously recited. It is also unclear which groove “the groove” is intending to refer to. It is unclear whether applicant is intending to refer to the “one or more grooves of said plurality” recited in claim 1 line 8, a groove of "the plurality of grooves”, or an additional groove.
Applicant recites “the respective groove” in claim 2. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis since “a respective groove” was never previously recited.
Applicant recites “the direction of development of the respective groove” in claim 3. The recited phrase lacks proper antecedent basis since “a direction of development” and “a respective groove” was never previously recited.
Applicant recites “said internal surface” in claim 5. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis since “an internal surface” was never recited. It appear as if applicant may be intending to refer to the “inner surface” previously recited in claim 1 line 8. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as if applicant is intending to refer to the “inner surface” recited in claim 1 line 8.
Applicant recites “the inside of the respective flow channel” in claim 5. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis since “an inside” was never previously recited.
Applicant recites “the distance between opposite faces of each groove” in claim 6. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis since “a distance” was never previously recited. It is also unclear whether applicant is intending to refer to each of the plurality of grooves with the recitation of “each groove”. It appears as if applicant may be intending to refer to each of the plurality of grooves. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as if applicant intended to recite “a distance between opposite faced of each of the plurality of grooves”.
Applicant recites “the distance between opposite faces of one or more incisions” in claim 7. The structure applicant is intending to refer to is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis since “a distance” was never previously recited. It is also unclear whether applicant is intending to claim an additional “one or more incisions”, or whether the recited limitations lacks proper antecedent basis and applicant intended to recite “the one or more incisions”. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as if the recited limitations lack proper antecedent basis and applicant intended to recite “the one or more incisions”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “made from metallic material”, and the claim also recites “in particular aluminum” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3 and 5-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 1, the present invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art because the prior art fails to disclose a method of manufacturing an evaporator having a microchannel comprising the steps of providing a first and second plate body, the second plate body comprising an inlet and an outlet for a biphasic cooling fluid, forming on a coupling face of the first plate body a plurality of grooves, forming incisions on an inner surface of the grooves by laser engraving, the incisions extending between ends of the grooves, overlapping and fluidic seal coupling the second plate body to the coupling face defining a respective flow channel for the biphasic cooling fluid at each groove, in combination with all other limitations set forth by the independent claim. The closest prior art, Zhang (CN 108 225 079 A) discloses a method of manufacturing an evaporator comprising a first plate body (2), second plate body (1), the second plate body having an inlet (11) and an outlet (12), forming a plurality of grooves (23), forming incisions (23), and overlapping and fluidic seal coupling the second plate body to the coupling faces to define respective flow channels (21, 22, 23) at each groove. However, Zhang fails to disclose the method including forming incisions on the inner surface of one or more grooves by means of laser engraving, the incisions extending between the ends of the groove, in combination with all other limitations set forth by the independent claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-13 are allowed (but rejected under 112) as a result of being dependent on an allowable (but rejected under 112) claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 5712720993. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights