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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Species 2, claims 1-4 and 6-9, in the reply filed on 4/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the seal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the seal” refers to the overall hermetic seal or at least one or both of the seals in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seki (US 20200219791 A1).
As to claim 1, Seki discloses: An electronic package (Fig. 3-12), comprising:
a core 11 with a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) opposite from the first surface, wherein the core comprises glass (par. 0066);
a channel 41 disposed into the first surface of the core; and
a lid 12 over the channel, wherein the lid seals the channel between a first end and a second end of the channel (lid 12 seals in combination with other sealing materials; Fig. 9A-12; par. 0079-0090).
As to claim 2, Seki discloses: wherein the channel has vertical sidewalls (see sidewalls of cavity 31 in Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Seki discloses: wherein the channel has sloped sidewalls (90 degree vertical slope sidewalls of cavity 31 in Fig. 3).
As to claim 6, Seki discloses: wherein a first end of the channel (e.g., 61 in Fig. 4) and a second end of the channel (e.g., 62 in Fig. 4) are both hermetically sealed with seals (via 14 and 12, and via 202, 211, 212; see Fig. 9A-12; par. 0079-0090).
As to claim 7 (as best understood), Seki discloses: wherein the seal comprises a buildup film 14 with a metallic layer (metal sputtering, solder 202, copper pipe 211, and/or top portion of 14 which may be an aluminum film; par. 0073-00744, 0082-0083, Fig. 9A-12) over the buildup film.
As to claim 8 (as best understood), Seki discloses: wherein the buildup film has a sloped surface (vertical edge surface of 14).
As to claim 9 (as best understood), Seki discloses: wherein a cooling fluid 32 (par. 0077) is hermetically sealed within the channel.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (US 20200219791 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Camarda (US 5527588 A).
As to claim 4, Seki does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the channel is triangular shaped.
However, Camarda discloses:
wherein the channel 30 (Fig. 3) is triangular shaped;
in order to provide a micro heat pipe channel with a desired cross-section (col. 1, lines 56-64; col. 3, lines 25-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seki as suggested by Camarda, e.g., providing:
wherein the channel is triangular shaped;
in order to provide a micro heat pipe channel with a desired cross-section;
and/or since there is no evidence that the change in shape is significant.
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kurtz (US 7987899 B2), Kohama (US 20200402873 A1), Mori (US 20130039010 A1), and Tonosaki (US 20050047090 A1) disclose related prior art in-board heat pipe configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights