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) because they fail to show "a plurality of the flat tube structure bodies are spliced together and are welded by means of the extending weldments" (based on this, part number 3 should be part number 2 instead in applicable figures) and "two outer ends of a plurality of spliced flat tube structure bodies are welded with the shunt components by means of the solder terminals" (based on this, figures part number 2 should be part number 3 instead in applicable figures) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
In an effort to expedite prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. For the purpose of prosecution, the locations and functions of the extending weldments and solder terminals will be interpreted according to the specification wording of “a plurality of the flat tube structure bodies are spliced together and are welded by means of the extending weldments, and two outer ends of a plurality of spliced flat tube structure bodies are welded with the shunt components by means of the solder terminals” instead of the figures.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz (US 2023/0047496), Velan (US 2013/0153183), and Kolb (US 2015/0300742).
Regarding claim 1, Franz teaches fluid flat tube heat dissipation device (100, Fig. 1, [0034]), comprising flat tube structure bodies (108, Fig. 1, [0035]), and solder terminals (See annotated figure below);
and the flat tube structure bodies are connected to shunt components (110, 112, Fig. 1, [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Franz does not teach extending weldments and the flat tube structure bodies, extending weldments, and solder terminals are integrated into a single unit by means of welding, and a plurality of the flat tube structure bodies are spliced together and are welded by means of the extending weldments. Also, Franz does not teach two outer ends of a plurality of spliced flat tube structure bodies are welded with the shunt components (110, 112, [0035], See annotated figure above) by means of the solder terminals.
However, Velan teaches connecting individual heat exchange panels to form longer heat exchanger chains ([0071]) with the advantage of more heat transfer ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect additional heat transfer tubes to form longer chains for more heat transfer. Additionally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform duplication of parts (See reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
When additional heat transfer tubes were connected to form longer chains, the solder terminal portion (See annotated figure above), of one end, of one heat transfer tube join with the solder terminal portion, of another end, of another heat transfer tube to form an extending weldment. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform welding to join the solder terminal portions because Franz teaches that welding has the ability to effect a liquid tight seal to prevent leaks of the liquid coolant (Franz: [0043]).
Because of this modification, modified Franz teaches flat tube structure bodies, extending weldments, and solder terminals are integrated into a single unit. Franz does not teach the integration into a single unit was by means of welding. However, Franz teaches that each heat transfer tube is a single unit having those components (108, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the parts come in one piece or have separable pieces joined together by welding to prevent leaks (Franz: [0043]). Because this would not have modified function of the heat transfer tube, the modification of using separable pieces joined together to form a single piece would have been a design choice (See reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Also, Kolb teaches a heat exchanger core comprised of a plurality of vertical, parallel, spaced tubes, and the tubes are inserted into, and sealed to, holes in the headers ([0006]), with the joints soldered ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to solder the joints between the heat transfer tubes (Franz: 108, Fig. 1, [0038]) and the first and second end blocks (Franz: 110, 112, Fig. 1, [0038]) to prevent leakage around the tubes and header or manifold.
Regarding claim 2, modified Franz teaches a clearance portion is formed at each welding point of the flat tube structure body and the solder terminal (See annotated figure below).
Franz does not teach the clearance portion is seahorse head shaped.
However, the shape of the clearance portion would not have affected operation of each heat transfer tube (See annotated figure below).
Therefore, the seahorse head shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
PNG
media_image2.png
243
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Franz teaches the solder terminal is set in an L-shaped structure (108, Fig. 1, See annotated figure above) and the extending weldment is set in a double-headed L-shaped structure.
As applied to claim 1 above, the L-shaped solder terminal portion (See annotated figure above), of one end, of one heat transfer tube joins with the L-shaped solder terminal portion, of another end, of another heat transfer tube to form an extending weldment having a double headed L-shaped.
Regarding claim 4, Franz teaches the flat tube structure body is an integrally-formed structure (108, Fig. 3, [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Franz teaches flat tube structure body is provided with a memory bank clearance portion (310, Fig. 3, [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763