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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takanashi (US 6,492,428 B1; cited in the IDS).
With respect to independent claim 1, Takanashi teaches in Figs. 1 – 2 A heat dissipation structure, comprising:
a supporting frame (50) 17; see column 4, line 37 configured to rotate around a central axis (0) as shown in Fig. 3 of the supporting frame;
a heat source 11; see column 4, line 47 arranged on the supporting frame and configured to rotate with the supporting frame; and
a radiator (30) 12 configured to receive from the heat source (40) a fluid oil; see column 4, line 5 heated by the heat source and input the cooled fluid to the heat source;
wherein the radiator is arranged on a periphery of the supporting frame as shown in Fig. 3 relative to the central axis, and when the supporting frame rotates around the central axis (0) of the supporting frame, the radiator is configured to allow air to enter into the radiator (30) via an air inlet opening (30-I) 7; see column 3, line 30 of the radiator and to be expelled from the radiator (30) via an air outlet opening (30-0) 3; see column 3, line 49 of the radiator.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Takanashi teaches a pump 8; see column 4, lines 7 – 8 configured to pump the fluid out of the heat source and pump the fluid into the radiator, so that the fluid circulates between the heat source and the radiator.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Takanashi teaches in column 1, lines 31 – 36 a container configured to be in fluid connection with the heat source, and the container is capable of storing the fluid pumped out of the heat source.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Takanashi teaches wherein the fluid is water or oil see column 4, line 13.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Takanashi teaches in Fig. 3 an inspection apparatus, comprising the heat dissipation structure according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the heat source is a ray source 11 arranged on the supporting frame to emit rays; wherein the supporting frame 17 is configured to define an inspection channel as shown in Fig. 3 passing the central axis of the supporting frame.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Takanashi teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the ray source 11is carried by the supporting frame to rotate around the inspection channel, and when the ray source rotates, the ray source is configured to emit rays toward an inspected object to acquire a three-dimensional image via CT in paragraph [0003] of the inspected object.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi, and further in view of Anno (US 2014/0153698 A1).
The teaching of Takanashi has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Takanashi teaches wherein the radiator comprises a first plate (21) 13 and a second plate (22) second 13 in Fig. 3, the first plate and the second plate are opposite each other to allow the air to pass between the first plate and the second plate so as to remove heat from the first plate and the second plate, but is silent with the first plate is farther away from the central axis than the second plate.
Anno, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0075] radiator 24 comprising a plurality of heat-radiating fins in a panel shape, and from Fig. 3 Anno should have the first plate is farther away from the central axis than the second plate. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Takanashi in order to cool desired fluid with an obvious engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Takanashi silent with but, Anno teaches in paragraph [0075] wherein the radiator comprises a heat pipe arranged in the first plate and the second plate, and the fluid flows through the heat pipe. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Takanashi modified by Anno in order to cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the limitation of “wherein the radiator comprises a plurality of heat sinks (23), and the plurality of heat sinks are connected between the first plate and the second plate and spaced apart from each other, so that two adjacent heat sinks between the first plate and the second plate define a channel allowing the air to flow” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of heat sinks are arranged between the first plate and the second plate in parallel” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the plurality of heat sinks are arranged to extend between the first plate and the second plate, and each of the plurality of heat sinks is at an angle with respect to a tangent direction of a circumferential trajectory of the plurality of heat sinks when the plurality of heat sinks rotate around the central axis (O)” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of heat sinks is arranged to extend meanderingly from the air inlet opening to the air outlet opening and between the first plate and the second plate” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the limitation of “wherein each of the plurality of heat sinks is arranged to extend meanderingly in a radial direction relative to the central axis (O) between the first plate and the second plate” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the limitation of “wherein the radiator further comprises at least one connecting plate fixedly connected between the first plate and the second plate” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to secure desired elements in a cooling system. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 10, in Fig. 3 Takanashi teaches wherein the at least one connecting plate, the first plate 13 and the second plate the second 13 form a box structure, the box structure defining the air inlet opening (30-I), the air outlet opening (30- 0) and a gas path between the air inlet opening and the air outlet opening.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the limitation of “wherein an area of the first plate is not equal to an area of the second plate” is within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to efficiently cool desired fluid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884