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 § 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 6, 14 is 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.
The term “close” in claims 6, 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Said recitation is given no patentable weight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klinge (US20200393880).
Regarding claim 1,
Klinge teaches a container (see abstract), comprising a box 500 and a heat dissipation apparatus 200, wherein the box is provided with an accommodating cavity (not labeled, see Figs. 1-2) for placing an electronic device (e.g. capable of placing an electronic device within said cavity); the heat dissipation apparatus is located in the accommodating cavity and installed on an inner wall surface of the box (see Figs. 1-2); the heat dissipation apparatus comprises a housing 110 with a cooling cavity (e.g. the cavity within which heat exchangers are located), wherein the cooling cavity is filled with a cooling liquid (see par. 23); the housing is provided with an inlet and an outlet which communicate the cooling cavity and the accommodating cavity (see pars. 21-23, 27-28); high-temperature gas in the accommodating cavity enters the cooling cavity through the inlet (see pars. 21-23, 27-28); and low-temperature gas in the cooling cavity generated after heat exchange with the cooling liquid enters the accommodating cavity through the outlet (see pars. 21-23, 27-28).
Regarding claim 2,
Klinge teaches a fan 213, 244 configured to transport the high-temperature gas in the accommodating cavity into the cooling cavity; and the fan is installed in the cooling cavity (see Figs. 1-2), and an air inlet of the fan faces the inlet; or the fan is installed in the accommodating cavity, and an air outlet of the fan faces the inlet (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3,
Klinge teaches wherein the heat dissipation apparatus further comprises a protective mesh, which is connected to the housing and covers the inlet; or, the protective mesh covers the fan (e.g. a grille, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4,
Klinge teaches wherein the heat dissipation apparatus further comprises a liquid inlet pipe (e.g. the inlet pipe for the evaporator or condenser), a liquid outlet pipe (e.g. the outlet pipe for the evaporator or condenser) and a cooling member (e.g. an evaporator), wherein the cooling member is located in the cooling cavity and between the inlet and the outlet (see Figs. 1-2); an axial direction of the inlet intersects with an axial direction of the outlet (see Figs. 1-2); a cavity of the cooling member is filled with the cooling liquid (see par. 24), and both the liquid inlet pipe and the liquid outlet pipe are communicated with the cavity of the cooling member (see at least par. 24), wherein the liquid inlet pipe is configured to introduce the cooling liquid into the cavity of the cooling member, and the liquid outlet pipe is configured to discharge a waste liquid in the cavity of the cooling member generated by the cooling liquid after a cooling process (see at least par. 24, wherein the recitation “waste” is interpreted as an evaporated liquid).
Regarding claim 5,
Klinge teaches wherein a number of the inlet is plural (e.g. where the inlets to the evaporator or condenser are plural), and the plurality of inlets are arranged at intervals along a first direction (e.g. wherein said direction is defined as any direction of said inlets); and the number of the outlet is plural (e.g. where the inlets to the evaporator or condenser are plural), and along a second direction (e.g. wherein said direction is defined as any direction of said inlets), a part of the outlets are located at one side of the inlets, and another part of the outlets are located at the other side of the inlets, and the second direction intersects with the first direction (e.g. as defined by said arbitrary directions).
Regarding claim 7,
Klinge teaches wherein the number of the heat dissipation apparatus is plural (e.g. apparatus 200 and 300), and the plurality of heat dissipation apparatuses are arranged on a top wall surface or a side wall surface of the box at intervals (see Figs. 1-2); or, a part of the heat dissipation apparatuses are installed on the top wall surface of the box at intervals, and another part of the heat dissipation apparatuses are installed on the side wall surface of the box at intervals, wherein the top wall surface and the side wall surface are adjacent (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8,
Klinge teaches a first communicating pipe and a second communicating pipe (e.g. a suction and discharge pipe of the compressor), and the first communicating pipe is communicated with a liquid inlet pipe of the plurality of heat dissipation apparatuses for transporting the cooling liquid (e.g. to or from said compressor); or, the second communicating pipe is communicated with a liquid outlet pipe of the plurality of heat dissipation apparatuses for transporting a waste liquid (wherein said recitation “waste” is interpreted as an evaporated liquid).
Regarding claims 9-13, 15-16,
The subject matter of claims 9-16 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1-5,7-8, and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8.
Regarding claim 17,
Klinge teaches wherein along a height direction of the container, an orthographic projection of the electronic device on a bottom wall of the container is arranged at intervals from an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation apparatus of the container on the bottom wall of the container; and along a height direction perpendicular to the box, an orthographic projection of the electronic device on a side wall of the container is arranged at intervals from an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation apparatus of the container on the side wall of the container (see at least Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18,
Klinge teaches wherein along a height direction of the container, an orthographic projection of the electronic device on a bottom wall of the container is arranged at intervals from an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation apparatus of the container on the bottom wall of the container; or along a height direction perpendicular to the box, an orthographic projection of the electronic device on a side wall of the container is arranged at intervals from an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation apparatus of the container on the side wall of the container (see at least Figs. 1-2).
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.
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) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinge.
Regarding claims 6, 14,
Klinge does not teach wherein the number of the cooling member is two.
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 a second cooling member within the system does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. providing for multiple stages of cooling within the system), the mere duplication of the cooling member in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Klinge to include a second cooling member, in order to predictably provide multi-stage cooling in a single system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gao teaches a container with a cooling apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
