DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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, 3-4, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozorgi US 11,859,914 B2 in view of Lee et al. US 2006/0098411 Al.
Re claim 1, Bozorgi teach a vapor chamber structure comprising: an upper plate having a first side and a second side and an lower plate having a third side and a fourth side, the aluminum upper plate and the lower plates being correspondingly mated with each other to define an airtight chamber (fig 26 ), a working fluid being filled in the airtight chamber (col 6), and multiple ribs directly raised from the third side with first ribs (430) extending in a transverse direction and with second ribs (414) extending in an intersecting longitudinal direction such that the first and the second ribs intersect each other and define multiple small closed sections configured as multiple micron-sized recesses directly formed on a surface of the third side and such that each recess is laterally bounded on all lateral sides by the first and the second ribs so as to be laterally separated from one another (fig 13a; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘recess’ is
2
: a hidden, secret, or secluded place or part
3
a
: indentation, cleft
a deep recess in the hill
b
: alcove
a recess lined with books; also noting assuming arguendo that the recess are not closed on the bottom, one or ordinary skill in the art would look at the instant application to see the closed recesses are open to the top[ direction, and thus being “closed” is to a degree and the claim remains broad without defining exactly how the recesses are closed, although it is noted that the prior art teach closed and laterally bounded on all sides).
Bozorgi fail to teach aluminum.
Lee et al. teach an aluminum upper plate having a first side and a second side; and an aluminum lower plate , the aluminum upper plate and the aluminum lower plate being made of aluminum material (para 22) so that the vapor chamber is lightweight and has better structural strength and is applicable to a low-temperature environment to prevent the working fluid in the airtight chamber from freezing to make the housing out of a known material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the materials as taught by Lee et al. in the over Bozorgi invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer and strength.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form an aluminum upper plate having a first side and a second side; and an aluminum lower plate , the aluminum upper plate and the aluminum lower plate being made of aluminum material so that the vapor chamber is lightweight and has better structural strength and is applicable to a low-temperature environment to prevent the working fluid in the airtight chamber from freezing to make the housing out of a known material, 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.
Re claim 3, Another embodiment of Bozorgi teach further comprising multiple support bodies , the support bodies upward protruding from the third side to connect with the second side of the aluminum upper plate, the support bodies and the micron-sized recesses being selectively connected with each other or staggered from each other (figs 23, 24, 22) to stack additional cross members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments in the Bozorgi, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer and strength.
Re claim 4, Bozorgi, as modified, teach wherein the micron-sized recesses are formed on the third side by means of traditional processing or nontraditional processing, the traditional processing being selected from the group consisting of lathe, miller, planer, grinding machine and stamping press, the nontraditional processing being selected from the group consisting of laser processing, discharging processing, etching processing and 3D printing.
The recitation of “the micron-sized recesses are formed on the third side by means of traditional processing or nontraditional processing, the traditional processing being selected from the group consisting of lathe, miller, planer, grinding machine and stamping press, the nontraditional processing being selected from the group consisting of laser processing, discharging processing, etching processing and 3D printing” 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 6, Bozorgi, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the micron-sized recesses have a width ranging from 200pm to 300pm and a depth ranging from 30pm to 50pm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the micron-sized recesses have a width ranging from 200pm to 300pm and a depth ranging from 30pm to 50pm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Re claim 10, Lee et al. teach wherein the third side of the aluminum lower plate has an evaporation section , a section of the fourth side corresponding to the evaporation section being in contact with at least one heat source (col 7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozorgi US 11,859,914 B2 in view of Lee et al. US 2006/0098411 Al in view of Lewis et al. US 11,598,594 B2
Re claim 5, Bozorgi, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a woven mesh layer.
Lewis et al. teach a woven mesh layer is further disposed on the micron-sized recesses (col 6 lines 20-65, in the instant combination the layer is disposed on the micron-sized recesses) to provide more wicking in the vapor channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a woven mesh layer as taught by Lewis et al. in the Bozorgi, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced fluid flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/06/2026 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.
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 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