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 § 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, 5-6, 8-11, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doll (US 6796370.
Regarding claim 1,
Doll teaches a cooling block 24 for cooling a heat-generating electronic component 17, the cooling block comprising: a cooling block body 22 defining a fluid conduit (e.g. the conduit comprising inlet conduit 76 and outlet conduit 78) therein for circulating a cooling fluid therethrough (see abstract), the fluid conduit having a conduit inlet (e.g. the conduit of body 22 corresponding to conduit inlet 76) and a conduit outlet (e.g. the conduit of body 22 corresponding to conduit outlet 78) for receiving and discharging the cooling fluid respectively, a connector 20 connected to the cooling block body at a top side of the cooling block body, the connector having a connector body (not labeled) defining two connector passages 76, 78, the two connector passages being disposed side-by-side (see Fig. 3), in fluid communication with the conduit inlet and the conduit outlet respectively (see Fig. 3), and fluidly connectable to piping of a fluid source (e.g. via the connectors comprising barbs 46, see Fig. 3), and wherein the two connector passages extend between a side face of the connector body (wherein side face is broadly interpreted to refer to any face that faces away from the cooling block) and a lower face of the connector body (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5,
Doll teaches wherein the connector is positioned such that the side face faces away from the cooling block (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6,
Doll teaches wherein the two connector passages are L-shaped or T-shaped (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8,
Doll teaches wherein the cooling block body comprises a base 44 connected to a cover 26, wherein the cover has at least one recessed portion (e.g. at 42), the connector being connected to the base and to the cover at the at least one recessed portion.
Regarding claim 9,
Doll teaches wherein a surface area of a top face of an upper portion of the connector is smaller than a surface area of a top face of the cover (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10-11,
The subject matter of claims 10-11 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 6 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1, 6.
Regarding claims 13, 15-16,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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) 2-3, 7, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doll.
Regarding claim 2,
Doll does not teach wherein a height of the cooling block body is less than a height of the connector body.
However, it has been held that claims directed to (the size of) a specific element were held unpatentable over prior art elements because limitations relating to the size of the elements were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Similarly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 3,
Doll teaches wherein a portion of the connector protrudes outwardly from the cooling block body when the connector is connected to the cooling block body (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7,
Doll teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of each connector passage of the two connector passages is: circular, or a flattened elliptical (see Fig. 3).
Doll does not teach in which a width of each connector passage of the two connector passages is larger than a height of each connector passage of the two connector passages.
However, it has been held that claims directed to (the size of) a specific element were held unpatentable over prior art elements because limitations relating to the size of the elements were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Similarly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
With respect to the recitation “and optionally further comprising an adaptor member connectable to an end of the two connector passages and having a cross-sectional shape which transitions, towards a distal end, from a flattened elliptical cross-sectional profile to a circular cross-sectional profile”, said recitation is given no patentable weight as it is interpreted to be merely elective and not required to meet said recitation.
Regarding claim 12,
The subject matter of claim 12 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 7 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 14,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights