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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “in YANG, there is no supporting protrusion found in YANG's metal plate (11) or ceramic plate (12). The support structure are connected to the ceramic plate via soldering, brazing etc.”,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations associated with the arguments above were rejected under 103 obviousness. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Examiner notes that Yang was relied upon as evidence that it is old and well known to assemble and to connect the internal structure (i.e. supporting protrusions (15)) of vapor chamber via a brazing process. Examiner also notes that Yang’s ¶ [0030] explicitly states that “the support structure 15 is located between and connected to the metal plate 11 and the ceramic plate 12”.
Applicant further argues that “the spilling groove structure, which acts as a reservoir for excess filler during brazing, is neither disclosed nor suggested in HUANG, YANG, or MORIBE. MORIBE only generally teaches welding and sealing structures but fails to teach such an advanced filler-controlling mechanism that prevents overflow to the capillary layer or the vapor flow path”,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes heating the brazing to melting point will allow it to flow into the at least one spilling groove and prevented from spillover onto the capillary layer since the groove is recessed structure that will prevent spillover if not overfilled. Examiner also notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (i.e., apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does) MPEP § 2114 (II).
Applicant further argues that “YAMAMOTO does not disclose or suggest such differential contour configuration or the selective positioning of the connecting portions relative to protrusion dimensions”,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that YAMAMOTO teaches a vapor chamber with a plurality of first supporting protrusions of a first plate (21: see YAMAMOTO’s Figure 16A annotated by Examiner) have a contour larger than a plurality of second supporting protrusions of a second plate (20), and connecting portions (46) are not entirely formed on the first supporting protrusions (see YAMAMOTO’s Figure 16A annotated by Examiner). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, YAMAMOTO teaches the structural limitation as defined by the claim and is capable of performing the implied functions.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
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.
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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 10502498 B2: previously cited) in view of YANG (US 20130048252 A1: previously cited) and MORIBE (JP H05245655 A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, HUANG teaches an internal structure of vapor chamber (See Figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 8A) , comprising: a first plate (1/1a) having an outer surface (lower surface of 1/1a: see Figure 8A), an inner surface (12a: see Figure 8A), a sealing edge extending outwardly at a periphery of the first plate, a level difference being formed between the first plate and the sealing edge (see HUANG’s Figure 1B annotated by Examiner), and
a plurality of first supporting protrusions (11a: see Figure 8A) being formed on the inner surface of the first plate (1/1a: see Figure 8A and Col. 5 Lines [1-10]), wherein each first supporting protrusion has a first outmost surface (see in Figure 8A where each of 11a has a first outmost surface (i.e. upper surface of 11a));
a capillary layer (3a) disposed on the inner surface of the first plate (see Figure 8A);
a second plate (2/2a) having an outer surface (upper surface of 2/2a: see Figure 8A) and an inner surface (22/22a), the inner surface of the second plate being spaced apart from the inner surface of the first plate (see Figure 8A), and the second plate covering the first plate to define a chamber (S: see Figure 8A), and
a plurality of second supporting protrusions (21a: Figure 8A) being formed on the inner surface of the second plate (see Figure 8A) and located corresponding to the first supporting protrusions (see in Figure 8A where 21a located corresponding to 11a), and
a plurality of reliefs (212) formed on the inner surface (22/22a) of the second plate (2/2a) and a steam channel being enclosed between two reliefs (see Col. 5 Lines [10-13 cf. Figure 7A]) wherein each second supporting protrusion has a second outmost surface (see in Figure 8A where each of 21a has a second outmost surface (i.e. lower surface of 21a)), wherein the first and the second outmost surfaces are facing each other (see in Figure 8A where upper surfaces of 11a are facing lower surfaces of 21a).
HUANG does not teach a brazing structure having a sealing portion and a plurality of connecting portions, the sealing portion being fixed between the second plate and the sealing edge of the first plate, and each connecting portion is sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces; wherein the sealing portion is disposed around a periphery of the second plate to align and contact with the sealing edge of the first plate, wherein the connecting portions each sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces are configured by a filler via a brazing process.
However, it’s old and well known to assemble and to connect the internal structure of vapor chamber via a brazing process, as evidenced by YANG, see YANG’s ¶¶ [0033, 0044, and 0046] where YANG teaches that a first plate (11), a second plate (12) and supporting protrusions (15) are connected via a brazing process, wherein the brazing structure has a sealing portion (i.e. the brazing portion that is around a periphery of the first plate and the second plate) and a plurality of connecting portions (i.e. the brazing portion that is connecting the supporting protrusions to the first plate and the second plate).
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 vapor chamber of HUANG with a brazing structure having a sealing portion and a plurality of connecting portions, the sealing portion being fixed between the second plate and the sealing edge of the first plate, and each connecting portion is sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces; wherein the sealing portion is disposed around a periphery of the second plate to align and contact with the sealing edge of the first plate, wherein the connecting portions each sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces are configured by a filler via a brazing process, since as evidenced by YANG, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of sealing the vapor chamber.
HUANG in view of YANG does not teach wherein at least one spilling groove is recessed into the first supporting protrusions of the first plate or at least one spilling groove is recessed into the second supporting protrusions of the second plate, and the filler is allowed to flow into the at least one spilling groove and prevented from spillover onto the capillary layer or into the vapor flow channel during the brazing process, so that the sealing portion and the connecting portions are identical in thickness via the brazing process.
However, it is old and well-known technique to provide grooves between brazed parts in order to increase the contact surface area, as evidenced by MORIBE, see in MORIBE’s Figures 1-7 where there are different shape grooves (2) formed on the joint surface of the metal member (1).
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 vapor chamber of HUANG in view of YANG with at least one spilling groove is recessed into the first supporting protrusions of the first plate or at least one spilling groove is recessed into the second supporting protrusions of the second plate, and the filler is allowed to flow into the at least one spilling groove and prevented from spillover onto the capillary layer or into the vapor flow channel during the brazing process, since as evidenced by MORIBE, such provision was old and well-known technique in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the contact surface area between the supporting protrusions of HUANG in view of YANG thus strengthening the brazing joint.
In view that the structure of HUANG in view of YANG and MORIBE meets the structural limitations of the claim, the combination is presumed to meet “so that the sealing portion and the connecting portions are identical in thickness via the brazing process”.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HUANG’s Figure 1B annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, HUANG further teaches wherein the vapor chamber has a thickness ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 mm (see Col. 2 Lines [61-62]).
Regarding claim 4, HUANG further teaches wherein the first plate and the second plate have a thickness ranged from 0.02 to 0.2 mm (HUANG indicated in Col. 2 Lines [61-62] that the thickness of the vapor chamber is ranged from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm, therefore, each of the first plate and the second plate would have a thickness within the claimed range, cf. Figure 8A where each of the first plate and the second plate takes half of the vapor chamber thickness).
Regarding claim 5, HUANG further teaches wherein a plurality of through holes are defined on the capillary layer corresponding to the first supporting protrusions of the first plate, the first supporting protrusions are inserted though the respective through holes, and the capillary layer is thereby attached on the inner surface of the first plate (Examiner notes that HUANG’s capillary layer is surrounding the first supporting protrusions (11a) which necessitates to have holes corresponding for the first supporting protrusions).
Regarding claim 6, HUANG further teaches wherein the first supporting protrusions of the first plate and the second supporting protrusions of the second plate are cylindrical, square or rectangular columns (see in Figures 2 and 8A where the first supporting protrusions of the first plate and the second supporting protrusions of the second plate are cylindrical and rectangular columns).
Regarding claim 7, HUANG as modified above further teaches wherein the at least one spilling groove (2 of MORIBE) has a cross section of a curve shape, a V shape or an inverted V shape (see in MORIBE’s Figures 1-7 where the spilling groove 2 has a cross section of a curve shape, a V shape or an inverted V shape).
Regarding claim 8, HUANG as modified does not teach a quantity of the at least one spilling groove is plural, and a plurality of spilling grooves are recessed into the first supporting protrusions of the first plate and the second supporting protrusions of the second plate.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the supporting protrusions of HUANG in view of YANG and MORIBE with a plurality of spilling grooves on both supporting protrusions, since such provision would involve a mere duplication of MORIBE’s spilling grooves, and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.): in this case only the expected result(s) of improved flow distribution and/or backup flow would be produced. In this case only the expected result(s) of strengthening the brazing joint by of increasing the contact surface area between the supporting protrusions would be produced.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having at least one, a plurality or none of spilling grooves would result in a difference in function of the HUANG. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with the supporting protrusions of HUANG, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed groove configuration. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed groove solves any stated problem, indicating that the groove “could” be defined on each first supporting portion 13 of the first plate 1 or each second supporting portion 23 of the second plate 2 while showing all possible configurations (e.g., with one groove, two grooves, or no groove(s), specification at Page 5 and Figures 3-11. Therefore, there appears to be no criticality placed on the groove 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 HUANG to include a plurality of spilling grooves on both supporting protrusions as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, HUANG as modified above further teaches wherein each spilling groove (2 of MORIBE) has a cross section of a curve shape, a V shape or an inverted V shape (see in MORIBE’s Figures 1-7 where the spilling groove 2 has a cross section of a curve shape, a V shape or an inverted V shape).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 10502498 B2: previously cited) in view of YANG (US 20130048252 A1: previously cited) and MORIBE (JP H05245655 A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AOKI (US 20190360762 A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, HUANG does not teach wherein the first plate and second plate are respectively made of copper, titanium, or stainless steel.
However, it’s old and well-known to select copper, titanium, or stainless steel to make the housing of vapor chamber, i.e. upper and lower plates, as evidenced by AOKI, see AOKI’s ¶ [0019] “An aspect of the present disclosure is the vapor chamber, wherein a material of the container is at least one kind of metal selected from a group including a stainless steel, a copper, a copper alloy, an aluminum, an aluminum alloy, a tin, a tin alloy, a titanium, a titanium alloy, a nickel and a nickel alloy”.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the first plate and second plate of HUANG out of copper, titanium, or stainless steel, since, as evidenced by AOKI, such provision is old and well-known in the art and since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having a material suitability for its intended use, i.e. copper have high thermal conductivity, titanium have high strength-to-weight ratio while stainless steel is known to be corrosion resistance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 10502498 B2: previously cited) in view of YANG (US 20130048252 A1: previously cited) and YAMAMOTO (US 6397935 B1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, HUANG teaches an internal structure of vapor chamber (See Figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 8A) , comprising: a first plate (1/1a) having an outer surface (lower surface of 1/1a: see Figure 8A), an inner surface (12a: see Figure 8A), a sealing edge extending outwardly at a periphery of the first plate, a level difference being formed between the first plate and the sealing edge (see HUANG’s Figure 1B annotated by Examiner), and
a plurality of first supporting protrusions (11a: see Figure 8A) being formed on the inner surface of the first plate (1/1a: see Figure 8A and Col. 5 Lines [1-10]), wherein each first supporting protrusion has a first outmost surface (see in Figure 8A where each of 11a has a first outmost surface (i.e. upper surface of 11a));
a capillary layer (3a) disposed on the inner surface of the first plate (see Figure 8A);
a second plate (2/2a) having an outer surface (upper surface of 2/2a: see Figure 8A) and an inner surface (22/22a), the inner surface of the second plate being spaced apart from the inner surface of the first plate (see Figure 8A), and the second plate covering the first plate to define a chamber (S: see Figure 8A), and
a plurality of second supporting protrusions (21a: Figure 8A) being formed on the inner surface of the second plate (see Figure 8A) and located corresponding to the first supporting protrusions (see in Figure 8A where 21a located corresponding to 11a), wherein each second supporting protrusion has a second outmost surface (see in Figure 8A where each of 21a has a second outmost surface (i.e. lower surface of 21a)), wherein the first and the second outmost surfaces are facing each other (see in Figure 8A where upper surfaces of 11a are facing lower surfaces of 21a).
HUANG does not teach a brazing structure, which has a sealing portion and a plurality of connecting portions identical in thickness, the sealing portion being fixed between the second plate and the sealing edge of the first plate, and each connecting portion is sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces; wherein the sealing portion is disposed around a periphery of the second plate to align and contact with the sealing edge of the first plate; wherein the connecting portions each sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces are configured by a filler via a brazing process.
However, it’s old and well known to assemble and to connect the internal structure of vapor chamber via a brazing process, as evidenced by YANG, see YANG’s ¶¶ [0033, 0044, and 0046] where YANG teaches that a first plate (11), a second plate (12) and supporting protrusions (15) are connected via a brazing structure, wherein the brazing structure has a sealing portion (i.e. the brazing portion that is around a periphery of the first plate and the second plate) and a plurality of connecting portions (i.e. the brazing portion that is connecting the supporting protrusions to the first plate and the second plate).
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 vapor chamber of HUANG with a brazing structure having a sealing portion and a plurality of connecting portions, the sealing portion being fixed between the second plate and the sealing edge of the first plate, and each connecting portion is sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces; wherein the sealing portion is disposed around a periphery of the second plate to align and contact with the sealing edge of the first plate, wherein the connecting portions each sandwiched between the first and the second outmost surfaces are configured by a filler via a brazing process, since as evidenced by YANG, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of sealing the vapor chamber.
Examiner notes that the vapor chamber of HUANG as modified above will result to have the sealing portion and the plurality of connecting portions identical in thickness in order to appropriately seal HUANG’s vapor chamber.
HUANG in view of YANG does not teach wherein the first supporting protrusions of the first plate have a contour larger than the second supporting protrusions of the second plate, and the connecting portions are not entirely formed on the first supporting protrusions, or the first supporting protrusions of the first plate has a contour smaller than the second supporting protrusions of the second plate, and the connecting portions are not entirely formed on the second supporting protrusions, and the filler is prevented from spillover onto the capillary layer or into the vapor flow channel during the brazing process, so that the sealing portion and the connecting portions are identical in thickness via the brazing process.
YAMAMOTO teaches a vapor chamber with a plurality of first supporting protrusions of a first plate (21: see YAMAMOTO’s Figure 16A annotated by Examiner) have a contour larger than a plurality of second supporting protrusions of a second plate (20), and connecting portions (46) are not entirely formed on the first supporting protrusions (see YAMAMOTO’s Figure 16A annotated by Examiner).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of HUANG in view of YANG to have the first supporting protrusions of the first plate have a contour larger than the second supporting protrusions of the second plate, and the connecting portions are not entirely formed on the first supporting protrusions 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 device of HUANG in view of YANG would not operate differently with the claimed proportion size. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed proportion size, indicating simply that the contour can be identical (see Figures 3 and 6-11) or different (see Figures 4 and 5).
In view that the structure of HUANG in view of YANG and YAMAMOTO meets the structural limitations of the claim, the combination is presumed to meet “so that the sealing portion and the connecting portions are identical in thickness via the brazing process”.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO’s Figure 16A annotated by Examiner
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 on (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
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763