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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014-204111 to Mutsuki Nobuki (hereafter “Nobuki”, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Nobuki discloses a temperature control device (see Figs 1-5 and English translation of record) for controlling a temperature of at least one heat exchange object (H), the temperature control device comprising: a first plate made (1) of a metal (par. [0012], Abstract); a second plate (11); a flow path wall part (2) sandwiched between the first plate and the second plate; and a resin (pars. [0012], [0015]) fixing part (4) fixing the second plate to the first plate, wherein: an internal flow path (21) for circulating a heat exchange medium is formed by at least one of the first plate or the second plate, and the flow path wall part, the first plate (1) comprises at least one connection region for thermally connecting the at least one heat exchange object (H) thereto, at an outer main surface of a side at which the flow path wall part is not arranged, and the resin fixing part (4) covers a region of the outer main surface excluding the at least one connection region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nobuki discloses that the first plate comprises at least one strut (20) that physically contacts the second plate (11) at a portion of an inner main surface at an opposite side from the outer main surface, the portion contacting the resin fixing part (4), (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Nobuki discloses that the first plate (1) has a fine uneven structure (inherently) at a portion that contacts the resin fixing part (4) (also, see par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Nobuki discloses that the second plate (11) is made of a metal (par. [0012], Abstract), and at least one of the first plate (1) or the second plate (11), and the flow path wall part (2), are an integrally molded product (pars. [0008], [0009], [0012]-[0016], [0019], [0021], etc.) made of a metal (par. [0012], [0013], Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Nobuki discloses that the second plate (11) is made of a metal (par. [0012], Abstract), and the flow path wall part (2) is made of a resin (par. [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Nobuki discloses (Fig. 1) that the at least one heat exchange object (H) comprises a plurality of heat exchange objects (H), the second plate comprises (11) at least one other connection region for thermally connecting at least one of the plurality of heat exchange objects (H) thereto, at an outer main surface of a side at which the flow path wall part is not arranged, and the resin fixing part (4) covers a region of the outer main surface of the second plate (11) excluding the at least one other connection region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nobuki discloses that the second plate (11) has a fine uneven structure (inherently) at a portion that contacts the resin fixing part (4) (also, see par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Nobuki discloses that the resin fixing part (4) is formed by insert molding (par. [0012]).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding claim 9, please note, that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Even though the claim is limited by 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 process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the method of making limitation “formed by insert molding” (though met by Nobuki) has no actual patentable weight.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claims are product-by-process claims that depend from an apparatus claim 1, and therefore, do not have any actual patentable weight as explained above. See In re Thorpe, supra. However, the method steps recited in the claims are inherently/obviously necessitated by the device stricture as recited in the apparatus claims 1-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 8, and alternatively claims 3 and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobuki.
Regarding claim 8, Nobuki discloses the flow path wall (2) is made of resin (par. [0013]), but does not disclose that the second plate (11) is made of resin.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known materials, including resin as claimed, for making of the second plate in Nobuki, for the benefits of molding said second plate and the flow path wall as an integral resin molded component, thus reducing number of parts and simplifying assembly of the device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Alternatively, regarding claims 3 and 7, the Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that technique of providing fine uneven surfaces on components to be molded together was notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the benefits of enhancing adhesion between components to be molded/joined together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first and second plates in Nobuki having fine uneven structures at the portions that contact the resin fixing part, in order to predictably enhance adhesion therebetween. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various liquid-cooled cold plates and heat spreaders to cool electronic devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights