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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “wherein said thermally conductive material has a thermal conductivity no less than 100 W/mK” (claim 10) is considered to be new matter. The originally filed specification, claims, and drawings have support for “(e.g. most preferably greater than 50 W/mK or even > 100 W/mK, such as Cu, Al, etc.)” embodiment combined with the original claim 1, but do not teach the a combined embodiment such that both “a hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material selected from Ag, Au, Sn, W, Zn, Ti, Ni, Pb, boron arsenide, gallium arsenide, silicon nitride, or a combination thereof, having a thermal conductivity no less than 5 W/mK” (claim 1) and “wherein said thermally conductive material has a thermal conductivity no less than 100 W/mK” are combined in a single embodiment. As such, the limitations are deemed to be new matter.
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 15-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said ceramic matrix". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12-13, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. US 20090032227 A1 in view of Zimbeck et al. US 7,848,624 Bl.
Re claim 1, Krassowski et al. teach a vapor-based heat transfer apparatus, comprising
(a) a hollow structure comprising (fig 2)
(b) a wick structure (46) in contact with one or a plurality of walls of said hollow structure (fig 2), and
(c) a working liquid within said hollow structure and in contact with said wick structure, wherein said wick structure comprises flakes of exfoliated graphite worms (paras 7, 9, 26, “The expanded, i.e., exfoliated, graphite particles are vermiform in appearance, and are therefore commonly referred to as worms. The worms may be compressed together into flexible sheets “ para 37).
Krassowski et al. fail to teach details of the material.
Zimbeck et al. teach a hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material gallium arsenide (col 3 line 59), having a thermal conductivity no less than 5 W/mK (noting GaAs has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/mK) to construct the hollow structure out of a known material which conduct heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the material as taught by Zimbeck et al. in the Krassowski et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for construction of a vapor chamber which conducts heat and vaporizes a working fluid quickly (fig 3).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material gallium arsenide for increased heat transfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘flake’ is a thin flattened piece or layer.
Re claim 2, Krassowski et al. teach said a plurality of walls of said hollow structure comprise an evaporator wall having a first surface plane, and a condenser wall, having a second surface plane (para 46) wherein said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms in said wick structure are aligned to be substantially parallel to one another and perpendicular to at least one of said first surface plane and said second surface plane (fig 2, noting parallel plates have evaporator and condenser portion and wick extends generally parallel since the stack is a plate stack).
Re claim 8, Krassowski et al. teach said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms are in a form of paper, film, mat, or membrane (fig 2).
Re claim 9, Krassowski et al. teach a vapor-based heat transfer apparatus, comprising
(a) a hollow structure (44v, 44e bottom plate of chamber fig 2 appears to be listed as 44e)
(b) a wick structure (46) in contact with one or a plurality of walls of said hollow structure (fig 2), and
(c) a working liquid within said hollow structure and in contact with said wick structure, wherein said wick structure comprises flakes of exfoliated graphite worms (paras 7, 9, 26, “The expanded, i.e., exfoliated, graphite particles are vermiform in appearance, and are therefore commonly referred to as worms. The worms may be compressed together into flexible sheets “ para 37 ),
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘flake’ is
a thin flattened piece or layer.
Krassowski et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the material.
Zimbeck et al. teach a hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material gallium arsenide (col 3 line 59), having a thermal conductivity no less than 5 W/mK (noting GaAs has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/mK) to construct the hollow structure out of a known material which conduct heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the material as taught by Zimbeck et al. in the Krassowski et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for construction of a vapor chamber which conducts heat and vaporizes a working fluid quickly (fig 3).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material gallium arsenide for increased heat transfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘flake’ is a thin flattened piece or layer.
For clarity, the recitation “…a polymer, carbon, glass, ceramic, organic, or metal matrix is used …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Re claim 10, Krassowski et al. , as modified , fail to explicitly teach the material.
Another embodiment of Krassowski et al. teach said thermally conductive material has a thermal conductivity no less than 100 W/mK (para 42 and /or para 68, 70) to construct the shell from copper for a base or mating structure to be constructed out of a highly thermally conductive material (para 42 and /or para 68, 70, noting the alloy has portions and or porperties which mee the claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments of Krassowski et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for casing to be made of a readily available material with high thermal conductivity and suitable strength as is known in the art.
Re claim 12, Krassowski et al. , as modified , fail to explicitly teach the material.
Another embodiment of Krassowski et al. teach said thermally conductive material contains flakes of exfoliated graphite worms (paras 49- 50 and /or para 69) to construct the shell from flexible graphite (paras 49- 50 and /or para 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments of Krassowski et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for casing to be made of a readily available material with high thermal conductivity and suitable strength as is known in the art.
Re claim 13, Krassowski et al. , as modified , fail to explicitly teach the material.
Another embodiment of Krassowski et al. teach said thermally conductive material contains flakes of exfoliated graphite worms that are aligned to be substantially parallel to one another and parallel to at least one of said first surface plane and said second surface plane (paras 49- 50 and /or para 69, noting two opposing walls, in the instant combination a parallel to each other in the final construction and there the graphite which makes the shell are considered parallel to each other) to construct the shell from flexible graphite (paras 49- 50 and /or para 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments of Krassowski et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for casing to be made of a readily available material with high thermal conductivity and suitable strength as is known in the art.
Re claim 17, Krassowski et al. , as modified , fail to explicitly teach fins.
Another embodiment of Krassowski et al. teach one or more extended structures configured to dissipate heat from said apparatus to an ambient environment (fig 4) to provide additional surface area for a heat path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments of Krassowski et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for casing to rapidly conduct heat away from the body.
Re claim 18, Krassowski et al. teach said extended structure contains a finned heat sink structure (fig 4, see the rejection of claim 17).
Claims 3-4, 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. US 20090032227 A1 in view of Zimbeck et al. US 7,848,624 Bl, further in view of Lin et al. US 20140224466 A1.
Re claim 3, Krassowski et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the binder.
Lin et al. teach said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms are bonded together or bonded to said one or a plurality of hollow structure walls by a binder (Paras 38- 40, in the instant combination the adhesive is used to bong d the graphite sheets of the primary reference to the outer wall of the primary reference using the teachings of binding sheets with graphite to adjacent sheets as taught by the modifying reference) to strengthen the material and or alter the thermal conductivity of the graphite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the binder as taught by Lin et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for an integrated heat sink of excellent structural integrity (para 38).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘binder’ is something used in binding.
Re claim 4, Krassowski et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the binder.
Lin et al. teach said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms are bonded together or bonded to said one or a plurality of hollow structure walls by a binder (Paras 38- 40, in the instant combination the adhesive is used to bong d the graphite sheets of the primary reference to the outer wall of the primary reference using the teachings of binding sheets with graphite to adjacent sheets as taught by the modifying reference) to strengthen the material and or alter the thermal conductivity of the graphite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the binder as taught by Lin et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for an integrated heat sink of excellent structural integrity (para 38.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘binder’ is something used in binding.
Re claim 6, Krassowski et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the binder.
Lin et al. teach said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms are dispersed in an adhesive to form a coating (noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘coating’ is 2: COAT, COVERING) or paint and said adhesive is bonded to an interior or exterior surface of said one or a plurality of hollow structure walls (Paras 38- 40, in the instant combination the adhesive is used to bong d the graphite sheets of the primary reference to the outer wall of the primary reference using the teachings of binding sheets with graphite to adjacent sheets as taught by the modifying reference) to strengthen the material and or alter the thermal conductivity of the graphite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the binder as taught by Lin et al. in the Krassowski et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for an integrated heat sink of excellent structural integrity (para 38).
Re claim 14, Krassowski et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the matrix.
Lin et al. teach the said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms are dispersed in or bonded by a matrix material selected from a polymer, carbon, glass, ceramic, organic, or metal (Para 40) to strengthen the material and or alter the thermal conductivity of the graphite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the matrix as taught by Lin et al. in the Krassowski et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a composite with high thermal conductivity and structural strength (para 1).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. US 20090032227 A1 in view of Zimbeck et al. US 7,848,624 Bl and Adamson et al. US 9646735 B2.
Re claim 7, Krassowski et al. teach said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms form a foam structure having pores and pore walls and said expanded or exfoliated graphite foam has a physical density from 0.001 to 1.8 g/cm3 (para 54) but Krassowski et al., as modified, fails to teach details of the foam.
Adamson et al. teach the said flakes of exfoliated graphite worms form a foam structure having pores and pore walls to form a composite of graphite and foam (col 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include foam composites as taught by Adamson et al. in the Krassowski et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a composite material with high strength without the catastrophic failure mechanism.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. US 20090032227 A1 in view of Zimbeck et al. US 7,848,624 Bl and Kirkor et al. US 2014/0345843 Al.
Re claim 19, Kirkor et al. teach a microelectronic, photonic, or photovoltaic system (para 160) but fail to teach containing said apparatus of claim 1 as a heat dissipating device.
Krassowski et al., as modified, teach said apparatus of claim 1 as a heat dissipating device to cool electronics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include said apparatus of claim 1 as a heat dissipating device as taught by Krassowski et al., as modified, in the Kirkor et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for prevention of overheating during operation.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. in view of Fujiwara US 20160324031 A1 and Zimbeck US 7848624 B1.
Re claim 15, Krassowski et al. teach a vapor-based heat transfer apparatus, comprising
(a) a hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material (para 69).
(b) a wick structure (46) in contact with one or a plurality of walls of said hollow structure (fig 2), and
(c) a working liquid within said hollow structure and in contact with said wick structure (para 62).
Krassowski et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the material.
Fujiwara teach a hollow structure comprising a thermally conductive material having a thermal conductivity no less than 5 W/mK to use graphite with an optimized thermal conductivity for heat dissipation (para 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the material as taught by Fujiwara in the Krassowski et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a lightweight material in a housing with high thermal conductivity (para 200).
Krassowski et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the material.
Zimbeck teach wherein said ceramic matrix comprises polymer, carbon, glass, ceramic, organic, or metal matrix, wherein said ceramic matrix is selected from, boron arsenide, silicon nitride, or a combination thereof (claim 11) to construct a combined material of a specific heat transfer material weight percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the material as taught by Zimbeck in the Krassowski et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously enable a low thermal resistance interface between the evaporator and semiconductor heat sources
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘flake’ is a thin flattened piece or layer.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form said ceramic matrix comprises polymer, carbon, glass, ceramic, organic, or metal matrix, wherein said ceramic matrix is selected from, boron arsenide, silicon nitride, or a combination thereof for increased heat transfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krassowski et al. in view of Fujiwara US 20160324031 A1 and Zimbeck US 7848624 B1 further in view of Hedler US 20050067689 A1.
Re claim 16, Krassowski et al., as modified fail to teach the hermetic seal, however, Hedler teach an adhesive that hermetically seals said paper, graphene film, membrane, or composite to protect the inner chamber from the exterior environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include hermetically seals as taught by Hedler in the Krassowski et al., as modified invention in order to advantageously allow for a configuration without underfill material affords the possibility of a "rework" i.e. a decomposition of the arrangement for repair purposes in the event of a fault (para 12).
General Remarks
It is noted that it is well known in the art (Mercuri US 5902762 A) that the flexible graphite (paras 68-69 of Krassowski et al.) sheets naturally compose graphite which has been expanded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,6-10 and 12-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that . The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights