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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1, the limitation “the top refractory brick is spliced above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick” in ll. 7 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the claim infers the entire top refractory brick is situated above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick. The first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick of the instant invention appear to be partially overlapping the top refractory brick, shown at least in figure 1. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the top refractory brick is spliced above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick” will be interpreted as – the top refractory brick is spliced partially above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick --.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the bottom supporting refractory brick is spliced below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick” in ll. 8 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the claim infers the entire bottom refractory brick is situated below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick. The first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick of the instant invention appear to be partially overlapping the bottom refractory brick, shown at least in figure 1. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the bottom supporting refractory brick is spliced below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick” will be interpreted as – the bottom refractory brick is spliced partially below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick --.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “determining installed quantities of first side refractory bricks, second side refractory bricks, top refractory bricks, and bottom supporting refractory bricks, respectively; assembling, based on the installed quantities, the first side refractory bricks, the second side refractory bricks, the top refractory bricks” in ll. 2 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the quantities are determined by the installed quantities, wherein the quantities must be determined prior to being installed. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the Claim, wherein further clarification is required to conduct an accurate prior art search.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111039544 A) in view of Materna (USP 4809621A), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Materna, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top Refractory Brick)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Side Refractory Brick)][AltContent: textbox (First Side Refractory Brick)]
PNG
media_image1.png
208
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Refractory Brick)][AltContent: arrow]
Wang Figure 1
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Wang discloses a heat dissipation device for a channel cooling section, wherein the heat dissipation device comprises
a side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1, being the first and second side refractory bricks), a top refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), a bottom supporting refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1),
the side refractory brick comprises a first side refractory brick and a second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1);
the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are arranged opposite to each other (shown in annotated figure 1), the top refractory brick is spliced above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), the bottom supporting refractory brick is spliced below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), and
a cavity structure is formed after the splicing is completed (shown in figure 1, being the hollow channel contained within the cooling pipe);
the first side refractory brick, the second side refractory brick, and the top refractory brick are arranged with a plurality of heat dissipation gaps (shown in figure 3). Wang fails to disclose at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink.
Materna, also drawn to refractory bricks (11), teaches at least one heat sink (upper mounting bar (12) as shown in figure 1) and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps (shown in figure 1) is installed with the at least one heat sink (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink, as taught by Southhall, the motivation being to create a mounting device for the refractory brick.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further discloses inner surfaces of the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are curved (shown in annotated figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang further discloses the side refractory brick, the top refractory brick, and the bottom supporting refractory brick are made of α-alumina, and a content of is greater than or equal to 95% (“The two kinds of heating bricks bear the heating control in the above mentioned above. at the same time, the heating brick further needs to have a basic structural support capability, mainly using α-alumina material, the Ai2O3 content must be controlled more than 94 %”).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang fails to disclose the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step.
Materna, also drawn to refractory bricks (11), teaches the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper (lower mounting bar (12) as shown in figure 1) on an outer side of the side refractory brick (shown in figure 1), and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step (see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with the side refractory brick being provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step, as taught by Materna, the motivation being secure the refractory brick in a desired position.
Regarding limitations “form an anti-tipping step” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to an intended use of said stopper, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111039544 A) in view of Roumeguere (Translation of EP0228918A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Roumeguere, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top Refractory Brick)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Side Refractory Brick)][AltContent: textbox (First Side Refractory Brick)]
PNG
media_image1.png
208
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Refractory Brick)][AltContent: arrow]
Wang Figure 1
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Wang discloses a heat dissipation device for a channel cooling section, wherein the heat dissipation device comprises
a side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1, being the first and second side refractory bricks), a top refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), a bottom supporting refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1),
the side refractory brick comprises a first side refractory brick and a second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1);
the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are arranged opposite to each other (shown in annotated figure 1), the top refractory brick is spliced above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), the bottom supporting refractory brick is spliced below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), and
a cavity structure is formed after the splicing is completed (shown in figure 1, being the hollow channel contained within the cooling pipe);
the first side refractory brick, the second side refractory brick, and the top refractory brick are arranged with a plurality of heat dissipation gaps (shown in figure 3). Wang fails to disclose at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink.
Roumeguere, also drawn to refractory bricks (5), teaches at least one heat sink (2-3 and 7) and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps (6) is installed with the at least one heat sink (shown in figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink, as taught by Roumeguere, the motivation being to utilize a waste heat for another device or to regulate the temperature of the refractory material.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further discloses inner surfaces of the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are curved (shown in annotated figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang further discloses the side refractory brick, the top refractory brick, and the bottom supporting refractory brick are made of α-alumina, and a content of is greater than or equal to 95% (“The two kinds of heating bricks bear the heating control in the above mentioned above. at the same time, the heating brick further needs to have a basic structural support capability, mainly using α-alumina material, the Ai2O3 content must be controlled more than 94 %”).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang fails to disclose the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step.
Roumeguere, also drawn to refractory bricks (5), teaches the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper (20, shown in figure 2) on an outer side of the side refractory brick (shown in figure 2), and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step (see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with the side refractory brick being provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step, as taught by Roumeguere, the motivation being to create a seal between bricks.
Regarding limitations “form an anti-tipping step” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to an intended use of said stopper, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111039544 A) in view of Cui (Translation of CN108362152A), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Cui, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top Refractory Brick)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Side Refractory Brick)][AltContent: textbox (First Side Refractory Brick)]
PNG
media_image1.png
208
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Refractory Brick)][AltContent: arrow]
Wang Figure 1
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Wang discloses a heat dissipation device for a channel cooling section, wherein the heat dissipation device comprises
a side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1, being the first and second side refractory bricks), a top refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), a bottom supporting refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1),
the side refractory brick comprises a first side refractory brick and a second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1);
the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are arranged opposite to each other (shown in annotated figure 1), the top refractory brick is spliced above the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), the bottom supporting refractory brick is spliced below the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick (shown in annotated figure 1), and
a cavity structure is formed after the splicing is completed (shown in figure 1, being the hollow channel contained within the cooling pipe);
the first side refractory brick, the second side refractory brick, and the top refractory brick are arranged with a plurality of heat dissipation gaps (shown in figure 3). Wang fails to disclose at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink.
Cui, also drawn to refractory bricks (1), teaches at least one heat sink (6) and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps (shown in figure 1) is installed with the at least one heat sink (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with at least one heat sink and at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation gaps is installed with the at least one heat sink, as taught by Cui, the motivation being to increase the heat exchange surface area of the groove inner surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further discloses inner surfaces of the first side refractory brick and the second side refractory brick are curved (shown in annotated figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang further discloses the side refractory brick, the top refractory brick, and the bottom supporting refractory brick are made of α-alumina, and a content of is greater than or equal to 95% (“The two kinds of heating bricks bear the heating control in the above mentioned above. at the same time, the heating brick further needs to have a basic structural support capability, mainly using α-alumina material, the Ai2O3 content must be controlled more than 94 %”).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang fails to disclose the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step.
Cui, also drawn to refractory bricks (1), teaches the side refractory brick is provided with a stopper (2, shown in figure 2) on an outer side of the side refractory brick (shown in figure 2), and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step (see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Wang with the side refractory brick being provided with a stopper on an outer side of the side refractory brick, and the stopper and the side refractory brick form an anti-tipping step, as taught by Cui, the motivation being to improve stability and stability of solid high-temperature heat accumulator.
Regarding limitations “form an anti-tipping step” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to an intended use of said stopper, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Prosecution Insights