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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fan must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the gas-phase refrigerant " and “the liquid-phase refrigerant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as " a gas-phase refrigerant " and “a liquid-phase refrigerant”.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “further comprising: a side wall that is parallel to the plurality of the fins and configured to constitute the second transporter” is unclear since, per the disclosure (i.e. ¶[0072] “The side wall 100 is an example of a second transporter.”), the side wall is the same structure of the second transporter. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if the side wall is the same structure of the second transporter.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “a heating component” is unclear since, per the disclosure (i.e. ¶[0052] “the element 36 that is a cooling target” and ¶[0052] “the element 36 is an example of a heating element”), heating element/component and cooling target are the same structure. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if the heating element/component and the cooling target are the same structure.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-11 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 13 and 14 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the gas-phase refrigerant " and “the liquid-phase refrigerant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as " a gas-phase refrigerant " and “a liquid-phase refrigerant”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “a direction”.
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kubo (US20210372707A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches a cooling device (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a container (44) in which a refrigerant is sealed (RF: see ¶ [0036]);
a heat receiver (46) configured to receive heat from a cooling target (36) and evaporate the refrigerant inside the container (see ¶ [0038]);
a condenser (48) that is disposed away from the heat receiver inside the container (see Figure 1), and configured to condense the gas-phase refrigerant (see ¶ [0039]);
a liquid transporter (78: see Figure 4) configured to couple the condenser (48) and the heat receiver (46: see Figure 4), and transport the liquid-phase refrigerant to the heat receiver (46) from the condenser (48) by a capillary phenomenon (see ¶ [0053]);
a first transporter (50) configured to couple the heat receiver (46) and the condenser (48) inside the container (44: see Figure 4 and ¶ [0040]), and include a first transport space (74) inside the first transporter (see Figure 13 and ¶ [0040]), in which the gas-phase refrigerant is transported to the condenser from the heat receiver (see ¶ [0050]); and
a second transporter (2T: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner) that is provided in pairs over two sides in a direction orthogonal to a moving direction of the refrigerant in the first transporter inside the container (44: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), and configured to couple the heat receiver (46) and the condenser (48: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), and include a second transport space (2TS) inside the second transporter (2T: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), in which the gas-phase refrigerant is transported to the condenser from the heat receiver (see ¶ [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
993
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Kubo further teaches wherein the first transporter (50) and the second transporter (2T) both have a plate shape (see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner and cf. Figure 4), and the second transporter (2T) is disposed perpendicular to the first transporter (see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner and cf. Figure 4)
.
Regarding claim 3, Kubo further teaches further comprising: a heat radiator (the pluralities of fins 90) configured to release heat to an outside from the container (see ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Kubo further teaches wherein the heat radiator includes a plurality of fins (90: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo further teaches wherein the plurality of the fins (90) has a plate shape and parallel to each other (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kubo further teaches further comprising: a side wall (SW: see Kubo’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner) that is parallel to the plurality of the fins (90) and configured to constitute the second transporter (see Kubo’s Figures 2, 3, and 13 annotated by Examiner).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kubo’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 7, Kubo further teaches wherein the side wall (SW) is thicker than each of the fins (see Kubo’s Figures 2, 3, and 13 annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 10, Kubo further teaches further comprising: second support columns (56) that are provided inside the container (44) and configured to maintain a diffusion space in which the evaporated refrigerant is diffused (see Figure 4 and ¶ [0043,0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo further teaches wherein the second support columns (56) are disposed with spaces interposed between the second support columns (see 56 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo further teaches further comprising: an insertion hole (88: see Figure 2) that is provided in the container (44), and through which a screw configured to fix the container to a heating component is inserted (see ¶ [0064]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kubo (US20210372707A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kubo teaches a cooling system (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a container (44) in which a refrigerant is sealed (RF: see ¶ [0036]);
a heat receiver (46) configured to receive heat from a cooling target (36) and evaporate the refrigerant inside the container (see ¶ [0038]);
a condenser (48) that is disposed away from the heat receiver inside the container (see Figure 1), and configured to condense the gas-phase refrigerant (see ¶ [0039]);
a liquid transporter (78: see Figure 4) configured to couple the condenser (48) and the heat receiver (46: see Figure 4), and transport the liquid-phase refrigerant to the heat receiver (46) from the condenser (48) by a capillary phenomenon (see ¶ [0053]);
a first transporter (50) configured to couple the heat receiver (46) and the condenser (48) inside the container (44: see Figure 4 and ¶ [0040]), and include a first transport space (74) inside the first transporter (see Figure 13 and ¶ [0040]), in which the gas-phase refrigerant is transported to the condenser from the heat receiver (see ¶ [0050]);
a second transporter (2T: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner) that is provided in pairs over two sides in a direction orthogonal to a moving direction of the refrigerant in the first transporter inside the container (44: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), and configured to couple the heat receiver (46) and the condenser (48: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), and include a second transport space (2TS) inside the second transporter (2T: see Kubo’s Figures 3 and 13 annotated by Examiner), in which the gas-phase refrigerant is transported to the condenser from the heat receiver (see ¶ [0040]); and a heat radiator (the pluralities of fins 90) configured to release heat to an outside from the container (see ¶ [0066]).
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.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US20210372707A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kubo does not teach further comprising: support columns that are provided inside the side wall and configured to maintain the second transport space, wherein the support columns are disposed with spaces interposed between the support columns.
However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. Since applicant has not disclosed that placing another support columns within the side wall does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. maintain the second transport space), the mere duplication of the support columns in the cooling device is not considered to have patentable significance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Kubo to include support columns that are provided inside the side wall and configured to maintain the second transport space, wherein the support columns are disposed with spaces interposed between the support columns, in order to predictably structural support and maintain the second transport space.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US20210372707A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sugito (US20020029873A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kubo does not teach a fan. Therefore, Kubo does not teach the direction from the condenser toward the heat receiver is the direction of a flow of wind by a fan.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for cooling system to have a fan, as evidenced by Sugito, see Sugito’s Figures 10-12 where the cooling system comprises a fan (240) and the direction of a flow of wind of the fan is the same direction of the fins (160a).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cooling system of Kubo with a fan that will cause an airflow to pass through Kubo’s fins, since as evidenced by Sugito, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increase the heat dissipation rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights