CTNF 18/853,008 CTNF 90868 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status: 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 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. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 4 , the limitation “ a holding part ” in ll. 3 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the holding part differs from the previously claimed positioning part. The instant disclosure states, “ The positioning part 121 may hold liquid-phase fluid. That is, the positioning part 121 may be referred to as a holding part which holds liquid-phase fluid ”. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “ a holding part ” will be interpreted as –the positioning part--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dubrow et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0140160A1), hereinafter referred to as Dubrow . [AltContent: textbox (Second Needle-Shaped Body)] [AltContent: textbox (Third Needle-Shaped Body)] [AltContent: textbox (First Needle-Shaped Body)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (Positioning Part)] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: textbox (Bodies)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 56 222 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (B)] [AltContent: textbox (Base)] [AltContent: textbox (Needle-Shaped Body 2[img-media_image2.png][img-media_image2.png])] [AltContent: textbox (Needle-Shaped Body 1)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 56 222 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Needle-Shaped Body 4)] [AltContent: textbox (Needle-Shaped Body 3)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 56 222 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Second Area)] [AltContent: textbox (First Area)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: oval] [AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 56 222 media_image1.png Greyscale Dubrow Figure 22A Regarding Claim 1 , Dubrow discloses a heat dissipation plate comprising: a substrate (shown in figure 22A) comprising a first main surface (being the top surface of the substrate shown in figure 22A containing the nanofibers) and a second main surface located on a side opposite to the first main surface (being the bottom surface of the substrate shown in figure 22A not containing the nanofibers); and a plurality of needle-shaped bodies (shown in annotated figure 22A above) extending outward of the substrate from the first main surface (shown in figures 7 and 22A), wherein a positioning part (shown in annotated figure 22A, being the space between the nanofibers) where fluid is positioned is provided between respective ones of the plurality of needle-shaped bodies (shown in annotated figure 22A), a portion of the substrate is made of ceramic (“ the nanofibers can be either substantially parallel or substantially perpendicular, or a mixture of parallel and perpendicular in relation to the substrate (which can comprise, e.g., silicon, glass, quartz, plastic, ceramic, metal, polymers, TiO, ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgS, MgSe, MgTe, CaS, CaSe, CaTe, SrS, SrSe, SrTe, BaS, BaSe, BaTe, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, AlS, AlP, AlSb, SiO 1 , SiO 2 , silicon carbide, silicon nitride ”, ¶109), the portion comprising at least a part of the first main surface (shown in figure 22A), and the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is needle-shaped crystals of the ceramic (“ the nanofibers can be grown/constructed directly upon the first surface. The substrates and nanofibers of such embodiments can be comprised of material(s) independently selected from the group consisting of: silicon, glass, quartz, plastic, ceramic, metal, polymers, TiO, ZnO, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe, HgS, HgSe, HgTe, MgS, MgSe, MgTe, CaS, CaSe, CaTe, SrS, SrSe, SrTe, BaS, BaSe, BaTe, GaN, GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InN, InP, InAs, InSb, PbS, PbSe, PbTe, AlS, AlP, AlSb, SiO.sub.1, SiO.sub.2, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyetherketone, polyimide, an aromatic polymer, an aliphatic polymer, etc.” ¶12). Regarding Claim 3 , Dubrow further discloses the second main surface (being the bottom surface of the substrate shown in figure 22A not containing the nanofibers) is flatter than a region where the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located (shown in figure 22A). Regarding Claim 4 , Dubrow further discloses between respective ones of the plurality of needle-shaped bodies (shown in figure 22A), a holding part configured to hold liquid-phase fluid (shown in annotated figure 22A above, referring to the “ Positioning Part ”). Regarding Claim 6 , Dubrow further discloses the plurality of needle-shaped bodies comprises a second needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A) and a third needle-shaped body adjacent to one another (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body intersect with one another when seen from a side (“ The nanofibers can optionally be fused together at cross (contact points) ”, ¶269), and a length A2 of the second needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), a length A3 of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and a distance B from a base of the second needle-shaped body to a base of the third needle-shaped body satisfy a relation of Formula (1):A2+A3>B ... (1) (shown in annotated figure 22A, wherein “ B ” is shorter than the length of either of the “ Second Needle-Shaped Body ” and the “ Third Needle-Shaped Body ”). Regarding Claim 7 , Dubrow further discloses a triangular area at a tip side is larger than a triangular area at a base side when seen from the side (shown in annotated figure 22A above, being the triangular are formed between “ Needle-Shaped Body 3 ” and “ Needle-Shaped Body 4 ”), the triangular area at the base side being formed with three vertices comprising an intersection point between the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body, the base of the second needle-shaped body, and the base of the third needle- shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the triangular area at the tip side being formed with three vertices comprising the intersection point, a tip of the second needle-shaped body, and a tip of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A). Regarding Claim 8 , Dubrow further discloses a triangular area at a tip side is smaller than a triangular area at a base side when seen from the side (shown in annotated figure 22A above, being the triangular are formed between “ Needle-Shaped Body 1 ” and “ Needle-Shaped Body 2 ”), the triangular area at the base side being formed with three vertices comprising an intersection point between the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body, the base of the second needle-shaped body, and the base of the third needle- shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the triangular area at the tip side being formed with three vertices comprising the intersection point, a tip of the second needle-shaped body, and a tip of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A). Regarding Claim 9, Dubrow further discloses when the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is seen from a side, an area of a gap in a region from half a maximum height of a range occupied by the plurality of needle-shaped bodies on a side of the first main surface (shown in annotated figure 22A, “ Second Area ”), is smaller than an area of a gap in a region from the half the maximum height on a side opposite to the first main surface (shown in annotated figure 22A, “ First Area ”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrow et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0140160A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 above in view of Huang et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0088289A1), hereinafter referred to as Huang . [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (Annular Joint Region)] [AltContent: textbox (First Main Surface)] [AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image3.png 120 383 media_image3.png Greyscale Huang Figure 2 Regarding Claim 2 , Dubrow fails to disclose the first main surface comprises an annular joint region to which a surface of a housing is joined, the surface being at a periphery of an opening provided to the housing, the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located on an inner side of the annular joint region, and the annular joint region is flatter than a region where the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located. Huang, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a first main surface (shown in annotated figure 2) comprises an annular joint region (shown in annotated figure 2), to which a surface of a housing (1) is joined (shown in figure 2), the surface being at a periphery of an opening provided to the housing (shown in annotated figure 2), the plurality of capillary bodies (21) is located on an inner side of the annular joint region (shown in figures 1-2), and the annular joint region is flatter than a region where the plurality of capillary bodies (21) is located (shown in figure 2, wherein the capillary structures create a roughness on the second member (2)). It is noted that Dubrow discloses the needle- shaped bodies being situated on the surface, wherein Huang teaches it is old and well known to provide a wick on the inside of a vapor chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Dubrow with the first main surface comprising an annular joint region to which a surface of a housing is joined, the surface being at a periphery of an opening provided to the housing, the plurality of needle-shaped bodies being located on an inner side of the annular joint region, and the annular joint region is flatter than a region where the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located, as taught by Huang, the motivation being to provide cooling for an electronic component, wherein excessive temperatures of the electronic component causes degradation or failure of said component or vapor chambers are known to be “ thin and lightweight and having high strength and high heat-dissipation efficiency ” (¶24). Regarding limitations “ a surface of a housing is joined, the surface being at a periphery of an opening provided to the housing, the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located on an inner side of the annular joint region, and the annular joint region is flatter than a region where the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located ” recited in Claim 2, which are directed to components being attached to the claimed plate, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “ Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. ” Further, a claim containing a " recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus " if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. Regarding Claim 13 , Dubrow discloses a vapor chamber (“ to increase the capillary pumping head in heat pipe structures and the like. The increased wicking capability can allow heat pipes to work more efficiently against gravity. Thus, the heat source can be located above, rather than below or level with, a cooling area ” ¶264, underline for emphasis) comprising the heat dissipation plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above) a housing (being the internal chamber of the heat pipe, see ¶264); and liquid-phase fluid located inside the housing (“ the innate wicking action of particular nanofiber surfaces acts to wick fluids ” ¶264), Dubrow fails to disclose a housing comprising an opening; and liquid-phase fluid located inside the housing, wherein the heat dissipation plate covers the opening, and the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located inside a space surrounded by the housing and the substrate. Huang, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a vapor chamber (“ vapor chamber ”, see abstract) comprising: a housing (1) comprising an opening (shown in figure 2, being the internal space of the first member (1) situated between the mounting portions); wherein the heat dissipation plate (2) covers the opening (shown in figure 2), and the wick (21) is located inside a space surrounded by the housing (1) and the substrate (2, shown in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Dubrow with a housing comprising an opening; and liquid-phase fluid located inside the housing, wherein the heat dissipation plate covers the opening, and the wick being located inside a space surrounded by the housing and the substrate, as taught by Huang, the motivation being to provide cooling for an electronic component, wherein excessive temperatures of the electronic component causes degradation or failure of said component or vapor chambers are known to be “ thin and lightweight and having high strength and high heat-dissipation efficiency ” (¶24). Regarding limitations “ liquid-phase fluid located inside the housing ” recited in Claim 13, which are directed to a working fluid within the chamber, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “ Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. ” Further, a claim containing a " recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus " if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. Regarding Claim 14 , a modified Dubrow further teaches the housing (1, as previously taught by Huang in the rejection of Claim 13) is made of metal (“ materials of the first and second members 1, 2 are selected from a group consisting of copper, copper alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, aluminum, aluminum alloy, stainless steel, ceramic, graphite and polymeric fiber ” ¶35). Regarding Claim 15 , a modified Dubrow further teaches the housing (1, as previously taught by Huang in the rejection of Claim 13) comprises: a plate-shaped part (shown in figure 2, being the flat part of the first member (1) situated between the mounting portions) opposed to the heat dissipation plate (2); and a mounting part for a heat source (shown in figure 2, being the surface portion of the first member (1) on which the electronic component (“ E ”) is mounted), and the mounting part is located on a surface of the plate-shaped part (shown in figure 2) on a side opposite to the heat dissipation plate (shown in figure 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrow et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0140160A1) as applied in Claims 2 and 13-15 above . Regarding Claim 5 , Dubrow further teaches the plurality of needle-shaped bodies comprises a first needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A, “ First Needle-Shaped Body ”), and the first needle-shaped body inclines at an angle (“ straight or non-curling fibers are tiled (or substantially most of such nanofibers are), e.g., at a desired orientation or angle, etc. However, such straight nanofibers are still encompassed within the current invention. In either case, the nanofibers present a non- tortuous, greatly enhanced surface area ”, ¶126) with respect to a perpendicular line (“ Panel A shows randomly oriented nanofibers ”, ¶269) for the first main surface (shown in annotated figure 22A, wherein the annotated nanofiber is nearly vertical). Dubrow does however teach that needle-shaped bodies are disposed on a surface at various angles for the purpose of heat dissipation and wicking a fluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide needle-shaped bodies on a surface for heat dissipation of for wicking a fluid within a heat pipe. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. needle-shaped bodies that are inclined at an angle of more than 50 deg, needle-shaped bodies that are inclined at 50 deg or needle-shaped bodies that are inclined at an angle less than 50 deg, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that a working fluid transfers heat through the needle-shaped bodies and that the needle-shaped bodies provide a wicking effect, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dubrow, by having the first needle-shaped body inclining at an angle of more than 50 degrees, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Regarding Claim 12 , Dubrow further teaches the first main surface (shown in figure 29, being the top surface of the “ Silicon Nanowire Plate ”) comprises a first region where the plurality of needle-shaped bodies is located (shown in figure 59, being the area designated “ Silicon Nanowire ”) and a second region flatter than the first region (shown in figure 59, being the area surrounding the “ Silicon Nanowire ”), and the second region surrounds the first region and has an area comparable to an area of the first region (shown in figure 59). Dubrow fails to explicitly disclose the second region has an area larger than an area of the first region. Dubrow does, however, disclose the second region surrounding the first region and having a comparable if not greater size (shown in figure 59), wherein the first region contributes to heat exchange (“ the vastly increased surface area presented by NFS substrates is utilized in, e.g., creation of improved microarray devices, as well as super-hydrophobic surfaces and improved efficiency heat exchangers ”, ¶97) and a wicking effect (“ the structure of the nanofiber substrates, even when not functionalized with, e.g., hydrophilic moieties, acts as an effective wick for liquids placed upon the substrate ” ¶175). Therefore, the extension or size of the first region is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger area of the first region contributes a larger heat exchange and wicking effect. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the area of the first region is comparable to the second region, was disclosed in the prior art by Dubrow, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the second region having an area larger than an area of the first region. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding Claim 16 , Dubrow further discloses the plurality of needle-shaped bodies comprises a second needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A) and a third needle-shaped body adjacent to one another (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body intersect with one another when seen from a side (“ The nanofibers can optionally be fused together at cross (contact points) ”, ¶269), and a length A2 of the second needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), a length A3 of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and a distance B from a base of the second needle-shaped body to a base of the third needle-shaped body satisfy a relation of Formula (1):A2+A3>B ... (1) (shown in annotated figure 22A, wherein “ B ” is shorter than the length of either of the “ Second Needle-Shaped Body ” and the “ Third Needle-Shaped Body ”). Regarding Claim 17 , Dubrow further discloses a triangular area at a tip side is larger than a triangular area at a base side when seen from the side (shown in annotated figure 22A above, being the triangular are formed between “ Needle-Shaped Body 3 ” and “ Needle-Shaped Body 4 ”), the triangular area at the base side being formed with three vertices comprising an intersection point between the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body, the base of the second needle-shaped body, and the base of the third needle- shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the triangular area at the tip side being formed with three vertices comprising the intersection point, a tip of the second needle-shaped body, and a tip of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A). Regarding Claim 18 , Dubrow further discloses a triangular area at a tip side is smaller than a triangular area at a base side when seen from the side (shown in annotated figure 22A above, being the triangular are formed between “ Needle-Shaped Body 1 ” and “ Needle-Shaped Body 2 ”), the triangular area at the base side being formed with three vertices comprising an intersection point between the second needle-shaped body and the third needle-shaped body, the base of the second needle-shaped body, and the base of the third needle- shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A), and the triangular area at the tip side being formed with three vertices comprising the intersection point, a tip of the second needle-shaped body, and a tip of the third needle-shaped body (shown in annotated figure 22A) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrow et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0140160A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 above in view of Aizenberg et al. (Translation of JP2017140405A), hereinafter referred to as Aizenberg . Regarding Claim 10 , Dubrow fails to disclose a respective one of the plurality of needle-shaped bodies has a polygonal cross section. Aizenberg, also drawn to capillary nano structures (“ a roughened solid surface featuring micro and nanoscale topographies ”) for wicking (“ Replenishment liquid B is drawn through the porous body of the substrate by capillary wicking to refresh the top surface of SLIPS. In certain embodiments, the porous material itself can be utilized as a fluid reservoir to store liquid B for subsequent capillary refill purposes ”), teaches a respective one of the plurality of needle-shaped bodies has a polygonal cross section (“ the size of the feature that produces the rough surface ranges from 10 nm to 100 μm with geometries ranging from regular pillar / open grid structures to pointed structures randomly oriented…Raised structures include, but are not limited to, circles, ellipses, or polygons (triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, octagons, and the like) that form cylinders, cones, cones, or prisms.. Although the exemplary substrate described above illustrates raised columns having a uniform shape and size, the orientation and / or size of the raised columns on a given substrate can vary ”). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a capillary nano structure having a cylindrical cross section with a capillary nano structure having a polygonal cross section; further the prior art to Aizenberg teaches a polygonal structure is known for a capillary nano structure for wicking a material, wherein Aizenberg also states that “ circles ” is a known equivalent for “ polygons (triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, octagons, and the like ”. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Dubrow with a capillary nano structure having a polygonal cross section, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Aizenberg there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Dubrow by having a capillary nano structure having a polygonal cross section for wicking purposes. Additionally, these two nano structure shapes were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a polygonal shape with a cylindrical shape . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubrow et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0140160A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 above in view of Tan et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0108245A1), hereinafter referred to as Tan . Regarding Claim 11 , Dubrow fails to disclose a conductor plate on the second main surface. Tan, also drawn to a heat sink, teaches a conductor plate (50) on the second main surface (shown in figure 5, being the top surface of the circuit board (49)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Dubrow with a conductor plate on the second main surface, as taught by Tan, the motivation being to allow for mounting electrical components that require heat dissipation, wherein excessive temperatures of said electrical components causes degradation or failure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800. 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. /PAUL ALVARE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 13 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 14 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 15 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 16 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 17 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/853,008 Page 18 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights