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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connection layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“spoiler fins alternatively arranged with the hollow fins” in claim 3, appears to be an error for “spoiler fins alternately arranged with the hollow fins”.
Appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: Examiner suggests applicant to amend the specification, without adding new matter, to incorporate any claim amendments that are directed to Claim Objections above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Wang (US20240008214A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a radiator (see Figure 1), comprising a baseplate-cavity assembly (1) and a hollow fin array (array of 2), wherein each of hollow fins (2) in the hollow fin array is in communication with a refrigerant gas inlet channel of the baseplate-cavity assembly, to allow a liquid working medium filled in the baseplate-cavity assembly (see ¶ [0027]), after vaporization via heat absorption, to enter an inner cavity of the hollow fin through the refrigerant gas inlet channel for heat dissipation, and the heat absorbed by the liquid working medium is from a heat source (3) to be cooled (see Figures 2 & 3 and ¶ [0035]); and an inner wall of each of the hollow fins (2) is provided with a flow-guide wall (23) having a preset inclined angle structure (see Figures 2 & 3 and ¶ [0029]), the preset inclined angle structure has an inclined edge which is inclined relative to a horizontal plane (see Figures 2 & 3), and the inclined edge is configured to guide the liquid in the inner cavity of the hollow fin back to the baseplate-cavity assembly (see Figure 3 and ¶ [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further teaches wherein the hollow fins (2) are vertically inserted into the refrigerant gas inlet channel (see in Figures 1-3 where the fins (2) are vertically inserted into the refrigerant gas inlet channel (i.e. channel that connect the fins to the base); and/or, the preset inclined angle structure includes an inclined square structure or an inclined semicircular structure with a preset inclined angle relative to the refrigerant gas inlet channel.
Regarding claim 10, Wang further teaches further comprising a fin guard plate (the most left and most right of the fins (2) as shown in Figure 1); wherein the fin guard plate is vertically mounted on a side end of the baseplate-cavity assembly to form an enclosure for the hollow fin array in a peripheral direction (see Figure 1 where the most left and most right of the fins (2) form an enclosure for the rest of hollow fin array in a peripheral direction).
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.
Claims 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US20240008214A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PENG (CN114096108A: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not teach further comprising spoiler fins alternatively arranged with the hollow fins; wherein a through hole is provided in a plate wall, facing the refrigerant gas inlet channel, of each of the spoiler fins.
PENG teaches a radiator (see Figures 2-4 and 9) comprising: spoiler fins (25) alternately arranged with hollow fins (22).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the radiator of Wang with spoiler fins alternatively arranged with the hollow fins, as taught by PENG, such provision would provide the benefit of increasing the heat transfer rate by increasing the area of the heat exchanger
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing a through hole is provided in a plate wall, facing the refrigerant gas inlet channel, of each of the spoiler fins would result in a difference in function of Wang in view of PENG radiator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the spoiler fins of Wang in view of PENG, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the radiator would function as intended being given the claimed configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the configuration as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoiler fins of Wang in view of PENG to have a through hole is provided in a plate wall, facing the refrigerant gas inlet channel, of each of the spoiler fins as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Wang as modified further teaches wherein the spoiler fin is integrally formed by stamping (Examiner notes that the spoiler fin (25 of PENG: see PENG’ Figure 9) is integrally formed since each fin is a single continuous structure, and it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 396, 328 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, the recitation " the spoiler fin is integrally formed by stamping" is considered product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113)).
Regarding claim 5, Wang as modified further teaches wherein a connection layer is provided on a vertical side wall, with respect to the baseplate-cavity assembly, of each of the hollow fin and the spoiler fin for mutual connection (see PENG’s Figures 2-4, 9 and ¶ [104] a connection layer (101) is provided on a vertical side wall of each of the hollow fin (22) and the spoiler fin (25) for mutual connection).
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified further teaches wherein the connection layer is an aluminum material layer serving as a solder (see PENG’s ¶ [111]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified further teaches wherein the spoiler fin (25 of PENG: see Figure 4) comprises wave-shaped toothed plates, each of the wave-shaped toothed plates is of a rectangular wave shape (see Figure 4 (a)) or a sinusoidal wave shape.
Wang in view of PENG does not teach a tooth pitch between adjacent two of the wave-shaped toothed plates is 2.2+0.2mm, and a thickness of a plate wall of each of the wave-shaped toothed plates is 0.2+0.1mm.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the tooth pitch and the thickness of the spoiler fin would result in a difference in function of Wang in view of PENG radiator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tooth pitch and the thickness of the spoiler fin of Wang in view of PENG, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the radiator would function as intended being given the claimed ranges. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed ranges solves any stated problem, indicating that the tooth pitch and the thickness of the plate wall of the wave-shaped toothed plate can be set according to actual needs (see specification at para. [0050]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the ranges as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoiler fins of Wang in view of PENG to have a tooth pitch between adjacent two of the wave-shaped toothed plates is 2.2+0.2mm, and a thickness of a plate wall of each of the wave-shaped toothed plates is 0.2+0.1mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Wang as modified further teaches wherein a connection layer is provided on a vertical side wall, with respect to the baseplate-cavity assembly, of each of the hollow fin and the spoiler fin for mutual connection (see PENG’s Figures 2-4, 9 and ¶ [104] a connection layer (101) is provided on a vertical side wall of each of the hollow fin (22) and the spoiler fin (25) for mutual connection).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US20240008214A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MENG (CN113865393A: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 8, Wang is silent regarding the details of the baseplate-cavity assembly. Therefore, Wang does not teach wherein the baseplate-cavity assembly comprises a cavity cover plate, a baseplate-cavity portion, and a liquid-sucking core structure; wherein the cavity cover plate is mounted at a top of the baseplate-cavity portion, the number of the refrigerant gas inlet channel is greater than or equal to the number of the hollow fin, and the refrigerant gas inlet channels are provided in the cavity cover plate; and the liquid-sucking core structure is mounted inside the baseplate-cavity portion, and the liquid-sucking core structure is configured to allow the liquid working medium filled in the baseplate-cavity portion to absorb heat and be vaporized into a gaseous working medium going to the hollow fins.
MENG teaches a radiator (see Figures 3 and 4), comprising a baseplate-cavity assembly (13 and 12) that comprises a cavity cover plate (13), a baseplate-cavity portion (12), and a liquid-sucking core structure (122); wherein the cavity cover plate (13) is mounted at a top of the baseplate-cavity portion (12: see Figure 3), a number of a refrigerant gas inlet channel (opening on 13 for the hollow fins (3) to be inserted in) is greater than or equal to the number of the hollow fin (3: it’s implicit that the number of the refrigerant gas inlet channel is to the number of the hollow fin), and the refrigerant gas inlet channels are provided in the cavity cover plate (13: see Figure 3); and the liquid-sucking core structure (122) is mounted inside the baseplate-cavity portion (12: see Figure 4), and the liquid-sucking core structure (122) is configured to allow the liquid working medium filled in the baseplate-cavity portion to absorb heat and be vaporized into a gaseous working medium going to the hollow fins (Examiner noes that MENG’s liquid-sucking core structure (122) is capable to allow the liquid working medium filled in the baseplate-cavity portion to absorb heat and be vaporized into a gaseous working medium going to the hollow fins).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the baseplate-cavity assembly of Wang with a cavity cover plate, a baseplate-cavity portion, and a liquid-sucking core structure; wherein the cavity cover plate is mounted at a top of the baseplate-cavity portion, the number of the refrigerant gas inlet channel is greater than or equal to the number of the hollow fin, and the refrigerant gas inlet channels are provided in the cavity cover plate; and the liquid-sucking core structure is mounted inside the baseplate-cavity portion, and the liquid-sucking core structure is configured to allow the liquid working medium filled in the baseplate-cavity portion to absorb heat and be vaporized into a gaseous working medium going to the hollow fins, as taught by MENG, such provision would provide the benefit of increasing the heat transfer rate by increasing the area of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 9, Wang as modified further teaches wherein the liquid-sucking core structure (122 of MENG) is a cylindrical structure (see MENG’s Figure 5).
Wang in view of MENG does not teach that the liquid-sucking core structure (122 of MENG) has a diameter Ⴔ of 1mm and a height of 3mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-sucking core structure of Wang in view of MENG to have a diameter Ⴔ of 1mm and a height of 3mm since 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the radiator of Wang in view of MENG would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and height and since the liquid-sucking core structure is intended to absorb heat and be evaporate a working medium into gaseous and the radiator would function appropriately having the claimed diameter and height. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights