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
Newly submitted claim 17 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 17 recites characteristics specific to Fig 5B which are mutually exclusive (wick and wire wick spatial configuration with respect to first and second body and support 530 and channel 570) with species drawn to Fig 5a, which has been examined thus far. Furthermore, this is no disclosure showing how both of thew species are combined into one embodiment.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the other wick adjacent to the other end of the wire wick" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 20180320984 A1 in view of Shiau US 20200413566-A1.
Re claim 1, Lewis et al. teach
a heat-dissipating structure comprising: a case comprising a first body (110) and a second body (105) spaced apart from each other; a wick (120) disposed in a space between the first body and the second body, the wick comprising multiple wires disposed in a first direction and in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and having a passage for a working fluid, the passage being formed along at least one opening formed between the multiple wires (mesh); a channel (115) formed between the second body and the wick and configured to move the working fluid through the at least one opening according to a change in a state of the working fluid; and a pillar (170) disposed between the second body and the wick, wherein the wick is spaced apart from the second body by the pillar to form the channel, and wherein the wick is in contact with the first body (fig 3).
Lewis et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the wick.
Shiau teach a wire wick (14) disposed between the second body (10, in the instant combination) and the wick (12) such that, together with the wick, an amount of circulation of the working fluid is increased (noting fig 1b shows three wick layers)
and including a region in which the wire wick is disposed (noting in the instant combination the modified wick is in location of 120 of the primary reference) to stack multiple layers of wick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the wick as taught by Shiau in the Lewis et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a high-performance method capable of rapidly transmitting a local heat source to the other side of the vapor chamber.
Re claim 2, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein a size of the at least one opening is determined based on a difference between an internal pressure of the wick and a flow resistance of the working fluid having an at least specified value (figs, also noting vapor naturally have these values and are design to work with fluids which naturally have flow resistance and pressure values when heated).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “is determined based on a difference between the internal pressure of the wick and a flow resistance of the working fluid having an at least specified value” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
The recitation of “wherein the size of the at least one opening is determined based on a difference between an internal pressure of the wick and a flow resistance of the working fluid having an at least specified value” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 3, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the at least specified value is a positive integer (see the rejection of claim 2).
Re claim 4, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the heat- dissipating structure is configured such that the internal pressure of the wick and the flow resistance of the working fluid are changed based on a substantial length of the heat-dissipating structure facing the first direction integer (see the rejection of claim 2, also noting no new configuration is claimed, noting it is unclear if “is changed” has any positive difference such as change in size etc of the configuration, also noting a length of a internal volume and space will naturally cause a pressure change).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the heat- dissipating structure is configured such that the internal pressure of the wick and the flow resistance of the working fluid are changed based on a substantial length of the heat-dissipating structure facing the first direction” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the wick has at least one structure among a first structure having a length specified in the first direction and the second direction and a second structure having a length specified to be shorter in the second direction than the first structure (para 38-39, see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 7, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the case is has a first thickness in a third direction forming a specified angle with a plane between the first direction and the second direction (noting a three dimensional volume naturally have an x y z thickness to occupy and create a vapor space, internal channel, etc , noting three planes, multiple thicknesses of sides in between top and bottom which are disposed in planes).
Re claim 8, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the wick has a second thickness in the third direction (noting a three dimensional volume naturally have an x y z thickness to occupy and create a vapor space, internal channel, etc).
Re claim 9, Lewis et al. , as modified, teach wherein the channel has a third thickness in the third direction, and a length obtained by summing the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness is within a specified value (noting a three dimensional volume naturally have an x y z thickness to occupy and create a vapor space, internal channel, etc).
Re claim 16, Shiau teach further comprising: another wire wick (13) disposed between the second body and the wick, wherein a spacing between one end of the wire wick and one end of the other wire wick adjacent to the one end of the wire wick is greater than a spacing between an other end of the wire wick and an other end of the other wick adjacent to the other end of the wire wick (figs) to stack multiple layers of wick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the wick as taught by Shiau in the Lewis et al.,. as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a high-performance method capable of rapidly transmitting a local heat source to the other side of the vapor chamber.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 20180320984 A1 in view of Shiau US 20200413566-A1 in view of JANG WO 2005/060325.
Re claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the case comprises a stainless steel material (page 6 line 16 JANG) for increased heat transfer and strength , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. The scope of the claim(s) has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Shiau to teach the recited wick details (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. US 2007/0107875 Al, US 11988453 B2.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763