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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/4/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-16, 18, 21 and 23 are pending. Claims 7-14 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2,4-6,15, 16,18, 21 and 23 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.
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 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirata et al. (JPH 09133485A) in view of JP 6560425B1). Regarding claim 1, Shirata discloses (figures 1-3) a heat conducting device (heat pipe) comprising a main body (2), the main body including an enclosable inner cavity (2a), the inner cavity being configured to receive a medium and accommodate the medium to carry heat to flow in the inner cavity, the medium flowing along a flow direction from one end of the main body (condensation portion) to the other end (evaporation portion) of the main body to transfer heat from the one end of the main body to the other end of the main body ( operation of the heat pipe transferring heat from an evaporation end to a condensation end, paragraph 3) wherein a surface enclosing the inner cavity is an uneven surface with a height difference, a plurality of parts (3) of the uneven surface having the height difference, and the plurality of parts having the height difference including a plurality of microporous channels (a,A) for guiding the medium; the plurality of microporous channels being formed in the plurality of parts (see figure 2); and each of the plurality of microporous channels being connected to the inner cavity to allow the medium to enter and flow in the each of the plurality of microchannels (figures 1-2, paragraph 12, the working fluid is circulated through the pores, fluid enters the wick from the pores on the hollow portion side from the cavity); and the main body (2) is a tubular member, an inner wall (shown as bottom of groove 3b) of the tubular is connected with a plurality of protrusions (3) protruding from the inner wall, surface of the inner wall of the tubular member and surfaces of the plurality of protrusions constituting the uneven surface, a protruding end of each of the plurality of protrusions (3) and the inner wall of the tubular member including the height difference. Shirata further discloses (paragraph 20) that each of the plurality of protrusions (3) is a solid member composed of metal powder for forming the plurality of microporous channels on the protrusions. Regarding claim 1, Shirata et al does not disclose that a material of the metal powder is stainless steel. JP’s 425B1 discloses (figure 3 and paragraph 34) a heat pipe (3) that has the wick protrusions (14) is made of stainless steel powder (14) for a purpose of improving mechanical strength of the wick layer. Furthermore, stainless steel is known in the art for its corrosive resistance, hence the use of stainless steel powder is also for improving the corrosive resistant of the heat pipe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use JP’s 425B in Shirata’s heat pipe for a purpose of improving mechanical strength and corrosive resistant of the heat pipe.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Shirata further discloses (figures 1-3, paragraph 10) that each of the protrusion (3)) extends parallel to an axial direction of the tubular member, and a plurality of protrusions (3) are distributed at interval in a circumferential direction of the tubular member for two adjacent protrusions and the inner wall of the tubular member to form a groove (3b) for guiding the medium.
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 2,6,15,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirata et al. (JP 09133485A) and JP 6560425B1 in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2007198714A). Regarding claims 2, 15 and 16, Shirata et al. and JP 6560425B1 do not disclose a computing device that has the medium dissipates heat generated by the computing device through the plurality of microporous channels (claim 15) and a heating element is in contact with one end of the heat pipe and a heat dissipation element is in contact with the other end of the heat pipe (claims 2 and 16). Sasaki discloses (figures 5-6) that a computing device (heat pipe to be used to cool semiconductor chips built into electronic device, paragraph 3) that include a heat pipe that has one end is in contact with a heating element (8) and the opposite end of the heat pipe is in contact with a dissipation element (fin 6), so that a medium within the heat pipe dissipates heat generated by the computing device through the capillary action of the wick (2). (operation of the heat pipe, to dissipate heat from a heating element 8 such as semiconductor chip of an electronic device, paragraphs 2 and 3) for a purpose of dissipating heat from the semiconductor chip of an electronic device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Sasaki’s teaching in the combination device of Shirata and JP 6560425B1 for a purpose of dissipating heat from the semiconductor chip of an electronic device. Regarding claim 18, Shirata further discloses (figures 1-3) that each of the protrusion (3)) extends parallel to an axial direction of the tubular member, and a plurality of protrusions (3) are distributed at interval in a circumferential direction of the tubular member for two adjacent protrusions and the inner wall of the tubular member to form a groove (3b) for guiding the medium.
Regarding claim 6, Shirata does not disclose that the one of the plurality of protrusions extends around the axis of the tubular member for the groove to be spiral groove around the axis of the tubular member. Sasaki discloses (paragraph 32) that the groove (3b), hence the projections (3) forming the groove (3b) in the longitudinal direction, can be parallel to the axial direction or by spiral for a purpose of transporting the working fluid along the longitudinal direction of the heat pipe from one end to the other end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Sasaki’s teaching in the combination device of Shirata and JP 6560425B1 for a purpose of transporting the working fluid along the longitudinal direction from one end of the heat pipe to the other end of the heat pipe.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirata et al. (JP 09133485A) and JP 6560425B1 in view of Lambrech et al. (WO 2018081119A1). Shirata and JP 6560425B1 substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that each of the plurality of microporous channels has an inner diameter less than 7 microns. Lambrech discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 48) a heat conducting device that has the wick (130) disposed on an inner wall of the pipe (100), wherein the wick has a plurality of microporous channels (micropores) has range diameter of 1 microns to 10 microns or a mean pore diameter of less than 7 microns (approximately 6 microns, paragraph 48) for a purpose of providing an optimum capillary action to the wick. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lambrech’s teaching in the combination device of Shirata and Jp 6560425B1 for a purpose of providing an optimum capillary action to the wick.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirata et al. (JP 09133485A) and JP 6560425B1 in view of Hwang et al. (US 20100181048A1). Shirata et al and JP 6560425B1 substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that a cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of protrusion is a triangle with a vertex pointing to a center of the circle. Shirata discloses that the cross sectional shape of each protrusion (3) is a rectangular shape that has its inner side facing toward to a center of the circle. Hwang discloses (figures 1, 3 and paragraph 14) that a wick structure (13,23) that has the protrusions ( 132, 232) can have a rectangular-shape or triangular shape transverse cross section, facing toward the center of the circle (figure 3) as an alternative design of choice to obtain a heat transfer performance as desired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Hwang’s teaching in the combination device of Shirata and JP 6560425B1 for a purpose of providing an alternative shape to the protrusion to obtain a heat transfer performance as desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763