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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 10/16/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a covering for an information handling system (heat sink; pg. 1 of Yamamoto translation), the covering comprising: a first layer comprising an aluminum alloy (aluminum alloy thin plate; pg. 3 of Yamamoto translation), and having a first surface and a second surface (pg. 3 of Yamamoto translation); and a heat pipe ultrasonically welded to the first surface of the first layer (plate-type heat pipe where the metal joining comprises ultrasonic welding; pg. 4 of Yamamoto translation).
The top surface of the aluminum alloy thin plate is considered to be the first surface. The bottom surface of the aluminum alloy thin plate is considered to be the second surface.
The heat sink being for a covering for an information handling system is an intended use limitation that would inherently be met by the structure of the heat sink of Yamamoto.
Yamamoto does not disclose the covering comprising the heat pipe having a continuously increasing non-uniform height across the length of the heat pipe including a first end of the heat pipe having a first height and a second end of the heat pipe having a second height, wherein the first height is greater than the second height.
However, Tochigi discloses a covering (heat sink; paragraph [0007]) comprising a heat pipe having a continuously increasing non-uniform height across the length of the heat pipe including a first end of the heat pipe having a first height and a second end of the heat pipe having a second height (heat pipes 11-1; paragraph [0039]) and wherein the first height is greater than the second height (paragraph [0039]).
When viewed upside down, the end of the heat pipe 11-1 connected to the heating element 31 is the first height. The end of heat-pipe 11-1 connected to the heat dissipation unit is the second height. This interpretation would provide a first height greater than a second height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto to substitute the heat pipe of Yamamoto for the heat pipe of Tochigi because having the required heat pipe allows for the desired amount of heat to be dissipated leading to improved cooling performance of the heat sink (paragraph [0027] of Tochigi).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto and Tochigi discloses the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto does not disclose the covering comprising the heat pipe comprising metallic copper.
However, Tochigi discloses a covering (heat sink; paragraph [0007]) comprising the heat pipe comprising metallic copper (heat pipes comprising copper; paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto to substitute the material of the heat pipe of Yamamoto for the copper in the heat pipe of Tochigi because having the required heat pipe allows for the desired amount of heat to be dissipated leading to improved cooling performance of the heat sink (paragraph [0027] of Tochigi).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto does not disclose the covering comprising the first end situated closer to a heat source of the information handling system than the second end.
However, Tochigi discloses a covering (heat sink; paragraph [0007]) comprising the first end situated closer to a heat source of the information handling system than the second end (end of heat pipe 11-1 disposed on heating element 31; paragraph [0039]).
When viewed upside down, the end of the heat pipe 11-1 connected to the heating element 31 is the first height. The end of heat-pipe 11-1 connected to the heat dissipation unit is the second height. This interpretation would provide a first height greater than a second height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto to substitute the heat pipe of Yamamoto for the heat pipe of Tochigi because having the required heat pipe allows for the desired amount of heat to be dissipated leading to improved cooling performance of the heat sink (paragraph [0027] of Tochigi).
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1) in further view of Lee (KR 20000035173 A).
Machine translations are being used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) and Lee (KR 20000035173 A).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto and Tochigi discloses the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising at least 50 wt% of the metallic copper in the heat pipe being recycled copper.
However, Lee discloses a covering comprising the metallic copper in the heat pipe being recycled copper (heat sink comprising either copper or aluminum where the resources can be recycled; pg. 6 of Lee translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to substitute the copper in the heat pipe of Tochigi for the recycled copper of Lee because using resources that are recycled such as copper provides improved manufacturing costs (pg. 6 of Lee translation) as recycled materials are cheaper than raw materials.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto, Tochigi and Lee disclose the covering of claim 3 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising 50 wt% to 70 wt% of the metallic copper in the heat pipe being recycled copper.
However, Lee discloses a covering comprising the metallic copper in the heat pipe being recycled copper (heat sink comprising either copper or aluminum where the resources can be recycled; pg. 6 of Lee translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to substitute a portion of the copper in the heat pipe of Tochigi for 50 wt% to 70 wt% of recycled copper of Lee because using resources that are recycled such as copper provides improved manufacturing costs (pg. 6 of Lee translation) as recycled materials are cheaper than raw materials.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above and Yamamoto discloses the covering comprising a first layer comprising an aluminum alloy (aluminum alloy thin plate; pg. 3 of translation)
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising at least 60 wt.% of the aluminum in the first layer being recycled aluminum.
However, Lee discloses a covering comprising at least 60 wt.% of the aluminum in the first layer being recycled aluminum (pg. 6 of Lee translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to include the recycled aluminum of Lee for the aluminum in the heat sink of Yamamoto because using resources that are recycled such as aluminum provides improved manufacturing costs (pg. 6 of translation) as recycled materials are cheaper than raw materials.
Claims 5, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1) in further view of Thomsen et al (US 9,429,370 B1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising the heat pipe having an average height less than 1 mm.
However, Thomsen teaches the use variable thicknesses depending on the heat dissipation requirements of the component that the assembly is being used to cool down (col. 4, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to adjust the average height of the heat pipe based on the teachings of Thomsen to be less than 1 mm because doing so would make it small enough to be compatible for use with a small electronic device such as a laptop or computer.
Regarding claims 8-9, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto does not disclose the comprising comprising the aluminum alloy comprising aluminum and magnesium.
However, Thomsen discloses a covering comprising the aluminum alloy comprising aluminum and magnesium (the heat sink base and the clamp top comprising an aluminum alloy of aluminum alloy 6061; col. 4, lines 57-60).
Aluminum alloy 6601 is an aluminum alloy comprising aluminum and magnesium and silicon as its major alloying elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to substitute the aluminum alloy thin plate of Yamamoto with the aluminum alloy 6061 of Thomsen because aluminum alloy 6061 provides an alloy with good durability (col. 4, lines 59-60 of Thomsen).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising the first layer having an average thickness of 0.4 mm to 1 mm.
However, Thomsen teaches the use variable thicknesses depending on the heat dissipation requirements of the component that the assembly is being used to cool down (col. 4, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to adjust the average thickness of the heat radiator to be from 0.4 mm to 1 mm based on the teachings of Thomsen because doing so would make it small enough to be compatible for use with a small electronic device such as a laptop or computer.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising the average thickness of the first layer at positions where the heat pipe is welded being 5% to 10% lower than the average thickness of the first layer at non-welded positions.
However, Thomsen teaches the use variable thicknesses depending on the heat dissipation requirements of the component that the assembly is being used to cool down (col. 4, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to adjust the average thickness of the first layer at positions where the heat pipe is welded to be 5% to 10% lower than the average thickness of the first layer at non-welded positions based on the teachings of Thomsen because the weld would provide additional thickness and allow the heat pipe to be strongly fixed to the heat diffusion plate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1) in further view of Mochizuki et al (JP 2000-156446 A).
Machine translations are used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) and Mochizuki et al (JP 2003-179189 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising the heat pipe extending along the length of the first layer in symmetric shape.
However, Mochizuki discloses the heat pipe extending along the length of the first layer in symmetric shape (heat dissipating structure comprising the heat pipe extending along the heat dissipation plate; Fig. 1 #6; paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to include the copper heat pipe of Mochizuki for the heat pipe of Yamamoto and Tochigi because having the required copper heat pipe provides the desired cooling of electronic components as copper is a good thermal conductor.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1) in further view of Danenberg et al (WO 2012/140652 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2002-062061 A).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Tochigi do not disclose the covering comprising the second surface being an anodized surface.
However, Danenberg discloses the covering comprising the second surface being an anodized surface (an anodized aluminum substrate having an anodized surface; pg. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to include the anodized aluminum surface of Danenberg for the bottom surface of the heat radiator of Yamamoto because having the required anodized surface of aluminum provides optimized heat transfer characteristics (pg. 14 of Danenberg).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto, Tochigi and Danenburg disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above and Yamamoto discloses the covering comprising a heat sink comprising an aluminum alloy base plate having a top surface (first surface not being anodized) and a bottom surface (pg. 3 of translation).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (JP 2003-179189 A1) in view of Tochigi et al (US 2020/0355443 A1) in further view of Schlaubitz et al (WO 2006/105919 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Yamamoto et al (JP 2002-062061 A).
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto and Tochigi disclose the covering of claim 1 as noted above.
Yamamoto and Thomsen do not disclose the covering comprising a carbonaceous material at the interface between the heat pipe and the first surface.
However, Schlaubitz discloses the covering comprising a carbonaceous material at the interface between the heat pipe and the first surface (heat sink comprising a graphite foil as an interface material between two components; pg. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covering of Yamamoto and Tochigi to include the graphite foil of Schlaubitz between the heat transfer tube and heat radiator of Yamamoto because having the required graphite foil between two components can even a certain roughness between the components and reduces thermal expansion (pg. 12 of Schlaubitz).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that Thomsen does not disclose a heat piper having a continuously increasing non-uniform height across its length including a first end and a second end where the height of the first end if greater than the second end.
This argument is moot as Thomsen does not disclose a heat piper having a continuously increasing non-uniform height across its length including a first end and a second end where the height of the first end if greater than the second end. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However ,new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Yamamoto does not cure the deficiencies of Thomsen.
This argument is not persuasive as Yamamoto is the primary reference and that the secondary references are being combined to modify Yamamoto to meet the claims.
Applicants argue that the outer plate surrounds the heat pipe in Fig. 5 of Yamamoto and it is unclear how a heat pipe is ultrasonically welded to a first surface of Yamamoto’s outer plate.
This argument is not persuasive as that heat pipe is formed by joining plate materials using ultrasonic welding (see pg. 4 of translation). This would result in an aluminum alloy thin plate to be welded to the heat pipe.
Applicants argue that Mochizuki, Lee, Danenburg and Schlabitz do not cure the deficiencies of Yamamoto and Thomsen.
The Examiner notes that Mochizuki, Lee, Danenburg and Schlabitz are teaching references used to teach non-uniform height of the heat pipe (Mochizuki), recycled copper (Lee), an anodized aluminum surface (Danenburg) and a graphite foil (Schlabitz).
However, note that while Mochizuki, Lee, Danenburg and Schlabitz do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Mochizuki, Lee, Danenburg and Schlabitz are as teaching references, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach certain concepts, namely non-uniform height of the heat pipe (Mochizuki), recycled copper (Lee), an anodized aluminum surface (Danenburg) and a graphite foil (Schlabitz), and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785