078321
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
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations.
Applicant' s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
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 metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one reinforcement structure of claim 12.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “structure” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “reinforcement”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines reinforcement structure, “The reinforcement structures 13 are, for example, grooves or pillars.”. Therefore, the reinforcement structure will be construed as grooves or pillars and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210131753 A1: Previously cited) in view of Dubrow (US 20060159916 A1: Previously cited) and HUANG (US 20170023308 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a metal mesh, configured to be disposed in a heat spreader (see Figures 10 A&B, Figure 18, and ¶ [0097]), wherein the metal mesh comprises:
a plurality of metal wires, intersecting to form a mesh shape (see Figure 10 A), wherein each of the metal wires has an outer peripheral reference surface (the main planar reference surface of each wire that is shown as gray spots in Figure 10B);
a plurality of protrusions (nanostructures protrusions that are shown as white spots in Figure 10B: cf. Figure 18), protruded from the outer peripheral reference surface, respectively (Figure 10B and ¶ [0107]); and
a plurality of concave portions (nanostructures concave portions that are shown as black spots in Figure 10B: cf. Figure 18), concaved from the outer peripheral reference surface, respectively (Figure 10B);
wherein each of the protrusions is adjacent to at least one of the plurality of concave portions (Figure 10B); wherein bottom surfaces of the plurality of concave portions are non-planar ( Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization which inherently create protrusions that protruded from the outer peripheral reference surface and concave portions that concaved from the outer peripheral reference surface. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 10B and as inherent to the methods of making Yang’s nanostructures, the bottom surfaces of the concave portions are non-planar: cf. Figure 18); wherein the protrusions have a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm (Yang indicated in ¶ [0144] and Figure 18 that the microcavities 1806 and the protrusions, as shown in Figure 18, appears identical in size. Therefore, Yang indication in ¶ [0144] with respect to the microcavities 1806 is applied to the protrusions. Accordingly, the protrusions (i.e. protrusions that are next to the microcavities 1806 as shown in Figure 18) length and width (i.e. diameter) depends of the effective size of the nucleation site for the fluid used and would have a diameter ranges from 0.1 µm to 1 µm: cf. Figure 18); and
wherein the protrusions and the metal wires are made of a same material by a dry oxidation method (Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization, and that is an indication that the material of the protrusions is the same as the material of the metal wires: Examiner notes that the recitation of " by a dry oxidation method" 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)).
Yang does not appear to teach the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm. Furthermore, assuming arguendo, that Yang does not disclose wherein the protrusions have a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm in light of the interpretation that the microcavities 1806 and the protrusions are not identical in size (a point which Examiner does not concede), the following alternative rejection is provided.
However, it’s old and well known in the art nanostructure surfaces to have protrusions with a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm and the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm, as evidenced by Dubrow, see Dubrow’s Figure 7 and ¶ [0009] where Dubrow teaches a mesh comprises protrusions (i.e. nanofiber) that have “an average diameter of from about 5 nm or less to at least about 1 micron, from about 5 nm or less to at least about 500 nm, from about 10 nm or less to at least about 500 nm, from about 20 nm or less to at least about 250 nm” and “an average density of from about 0.11 (or about 0.1) nanofiber per square micron or less to at least about 1000 nanofibers per square micron, from about 1 nanofiber per square micron or less to at least about 500 nanofibers per square micron, from about 10 nanofibers per square micron or less to at least about 250 nanofibers per square micron, or from about 50 nanofibers per square micron or less to at least about 100 nanofibers per square micron” (i.e. the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusions of Yang to have a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm and the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm, since as evidenced by Dubrow, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing the surface area, thus increasing the heat transfer rate.
Furthermore, Yang does not teach a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate; a lower plate, combined with the upper plate; a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh, and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for Yang’s metal mesh, as modified above, to be used in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, as evidenced by HUANG, see HUANG’s Figures 1B and 4A where the heat spreader (VC), comprising: an upper plate (2): a lower plate (1), combined with the upper plate a chamber (S), located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate (see ¶ [0035]); at least one reinforcement structure (211), extending from the upper plate (2) toward the lower plate (1) into the chamber (see Figure 4A); and at least one porous structure (3), located in the chamber (S), wherein the porous structure (3) is a metal mesh (see ¶ [0038]) ; and wherein the metal mesh (3) is clamped by the reinforcing structure (211) and the lower plate (1) to be fixed in the heat spreader (see Figure 4A).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the metal mesh of Yang in view of Dubrow in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, since as evidenced by HUANG, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a working heat spreader with Yang’s improved metal mesh.
Regarding claim 10, Yang further teaches wherein the protrusions and the metal wires are integrally formed, (Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization, and that is an indication that the protrusions and the metal wires are integrally formed).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210131753 A1: Previously cited) in view of HUANG (US 20170023308 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches a metal mesh, configured to be disposed in a heat spreader (see Figures 10 A&B, Figure 18, and ¶ [0097]), wherein the metal mesh comprises: a plurality of metal wires, intersecting with each other to form a mesh shape (see Figure 10 A); and a plurality of protrusions (nanostructures protrusions that are shown as white spots in Figure 10B: cf. Figure 18), protruded from outer surfaces of the metal wires, respectively (Figure 10B and ¶ [0107]), wherein each of the protrusions has a height and a projected area, and the ratio of the height to the projected area is less than 3 (see ¶ [0099] i.e. “the nanostructures can have a height of larger than 200 nm, and a height-to-width ratio larger than 2”); and
wherein the protrusions and the metal wires are made of a same material by a dry oxidation method (Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization, and that is an indication that the material of the protrusions is the same as the material of the metal wires: Examiner notes that the recitation of " by a dry oxidation method" 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)).
Yang does not teach a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate; a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for Yang’s metal mesh to be used in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, as evidenced by HUANG, see HUANG’s Figures 1B and 4A where the heat spreader (VC), comprising: an upper plate (2): a lower plate (1), combined with the upper plate a chamber (S), located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate (see ¶ [0035]); at least one reinforcement structure (211), extending from the upper plate (2) toward the lower plate (1) into the chamber (see Figure 4A); and at least one porous structure (3), located in the chamber (S), wherein the porous structure (3) is a metal mesh (see ¶ [0038]) ; and wherein the metal mesh (3) is clamped by the reinforcing structure (211) and the lower plate (1) to be fixed in the heat spreader (see Figure 4A).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Yang’s metal mesh in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, since as evidenced by HUANG, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a working heat spreader with Yang’s improved metal mesh.
Claims 3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210131753 A1: Previously cited) in view of Dubrow (US 20060159916 A1: Previously cited) and HUANG (US 20170023308 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches a metal mesh, configured to be disposed in a heat spreader (see Figures 10 A&B, Figure 18, and ¶ [0097]), wherein the metal mesh comprises: a plurality of metal wires, intersecting with each other to form a mesh shape (see Figure 10 A); and a plurality of protrusions (nanostructures protrusions that are shown as white spots in Figure 10B: cf. Figure 18), respectively protruded from outer surfaces of the metal wires, (Figure 10B and ¶ [0107]), wherein an arrangement density of the plurality of protrusions on the outer surfaces is 10-200 pieces/100
µ
m
2
(Yang indicated in ¶ [0144] that the protrusions length and width (i.e. diameter) depends of the effective size of the nucleation site for the fluid used and would have a diameter ranges from 0.1 µm to 10 µm and a pitch of 0.2 µm to 20 µm. Accordingly, arrangement density of the plurality of protrusions on the outer surfaces is 1-6370 pieces/100 µm2: cf. Figure 18); and
wherein the protrusions and the metal wires are made of a same material by a dry oxidation method (Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization, and that is an indication that the material of the protrusions is the same as the material of the metal wires: Examiner notes that the recitation of " by a dry oxidation method" 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)).
Yang does not teach wherein the protrusions have a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm, and the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm.
However, it’s old and well known in the art nanostructure surfaces to have protrusions with a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm and the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm, as evidenced by Dubrow, see Dubrow’s Figure 7 and ¶ [0009] where Dubrow teaches a mesh comprises protrusions (i.e. nanofiber) that have “an average diameter of from about 5 nm or less to at least about 1 micron, from about 5 nm or less to at least about 500 nm, from about 10 nm or less to at least about 500 nm, from about 20 nm or less to at least about 250 nm” and “an average density of from about 0.11 (or about 0.1) nanofiber per square micron or less to at least about 1000 nanofibers per square micron, from about 1 nanofiber per square micron or less to at least about 500 nanofibers per square micron, from about 10 nanofibers per square micron or less to at least about 250 nanofibers per square micron, or from about 50 nanofibers per square micron or less to at least about 100 nanofibers per square micron” (i.e. the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protrusions of Yang to have a length of 10 nm to 300 nm and a width of 10 nm to 300 nm and the closest distance between outer peripheral surfaces of two protrusions is less than 10 nm, since as evidenced by Dubrow, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing the surface area, thus increasing the heat transfer rate.
Furthermore, Yang does not teach a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate; a lower plate, combined with the upper plate; a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh, and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for Yang’s metal mesh, as modified above, to be used in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, as evidenced by HUANG, see HUANG’s Figures 1B and 4A where the heat spreader (VC), comprising: an upper plate (2): a lower plate (1), combined with the upper plate a chamber (S), located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate (see ¶ [0035]); at least one reinforcement structure (211), extending from the upper plate (2) toward the lower plate (1) into the chamber (see Figure 4A); and at least one porous structure (3), located in the chamber (S), wherein the porous structure (3) is a metal mesh (see ¶ [0038]) ; and wherein the metal mesh (3) is clamped by the reinforcing structure (211) and the lower plate (1) to be fixed in the heat spreader (see Figure 4A).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the metal mesh of Yang in view of Dubrow in a heat spreader, comprising: an upper plate: a lower plate, combined with the upper plate a chamber, located in a closed space surrounded by the upper plate and the lower plate; at least one reinforcement structure, extending from the upper plate toward the lower plate into the chamber; and at least one porous structure, located in the chamber, wherein the porous structure is a metal mesh; and wherein the metal mesh is clamped by the reinforcing structure and the lower plate to be fixed in the heat spreader, since as evidenced by HUANG, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of having a working heat spreader with Yang’s improved metal mesh.
Regarding claim 5, Yang further teaches wherein each of the protrusions has a height and a projected area, and a ratio of the height to the projected area is less than 3 (see ¶ [0099] i.e. “the nanostructures can have a height of larger than 200 nm, and a height-to-width ratio larger than 2”).
Regarding claim 11, Yang further teaches wherein an arrangement region of the protrusions with the arrangement density is all outer surfaces of the metal wires (Yang indicated in ¶¶ [0104 and 0107] that the nanostructures can be made for example by self-limiting chemical oxidization, chemical etching, plasma etching, chemical deposition, electrodeposition, and anodization which necessitate to have the arrangement region of the protrusions with the arrangement density is all outer surfaces of the metal wires: see Figures 10 A&B).
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 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
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763