DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 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 TAKAHASHI US 20250048591 A1.
Re claim 6, Bozorgi, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for particular sizes.
TAKAHASHI teach the micron-sized recesses have a width ranging from 200um to 300um and a depth ranging from 30um to 50um to provide a recess of a certain size in a vapor chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include particular sizes as taught by TAKAHASHI in the Bozorgi, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for working fluid transfers the heat of the device by circulating inside the vapor chamber while repeating phase changes, that is, vaporization and condensation, thus enhancing heat dissipation efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art fail to the recesses of claim 1 since the are formed differently (additive vs subtractive). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The broad limitations of claim 1 where a recess is “formed on a surface” only require recess on a surface that are defined by surrounding structure in the claim, The broad limitations are met by the prior art and do not require further details as elaborated in the arguments. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “directly into the surface on the third side”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is also noted that recesses with naturally be laterally bounded by a structure to create the volume which is considered the recess.
The applicant argues that the combination of references in claim 1 would result in a functionally comprised structure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has only provided a statement of record, with no evidence, no citations, and no reference to any part of the prior art of record which show a woven mesh layer over ribs would interfere with vapor flow. It is noted the redundant argument is not persuasive since the two different prior art are combining two different types of structure and are thus not identical and redundant.
I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 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
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
Prosecution Insights