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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 3-4 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-10 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.
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 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "at least one of the fluid passage" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is further rejected as can be best understood by the examiner in which “at least one of the fluid passage” refers to “one or more fluid passage in the substrate” recites in claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Upadhya et al. (US 20040188066A1). Regarding claim 1, Upadhya discloses (figures 1A,1B and 2) a passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader (104 or 204) comprising a monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features, wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes a silicon substrate (104’) and silicon features (20, 22) having two or more different vertical feature heights above the substrate (paragraph 26 and figure 1B); wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features does not include any wafer-to-wafer bonds (no wafer to wafer bonds is shown or described); wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes features having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more.(table 2), wherein the two or more different vertical feature height above the surface provide fluid flow channels having two or more different fluid flow depths (flow channel formed between posts 20 have different depth with flow channel formed between shorter post 22) and the two or more different vertical feature height have two or more corresponding different functions. (the short posts has a function is to form shallow passage between posts and the taller posts has a function is to form deeper flow passage between posts). Regarding claim 2, Upadhva discloses (figure 1B) that the wicking features include one or more pins (20,22) that rise vertically from the substrate surface (104’). Regarding claim 9, Upadhva discloses (figure 2) a vapor chamber (200) that has a capping layer (205) disposed to form an enclosure with the passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader as in claim 1 and an evaporation coolant disposed in the enclosure (table 2, working fluid in either liquid phase, vapor phase or both is in the enclosure).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhya et al. (US 20040188066A1) in view of Wang Tien-Lai (US 6,477,045).
Regarding claims 5- 6, Batty and Lewis substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the heat spreader further comprises one or more fluid passage in the substrate, and the at least one of the fluid passage is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate. Wang Tien-Lai discloses (figure 3) a vapor chamber that has a fluid passage (26) is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate (24) for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber. (column 2, lines 62-65)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Wang Tien-Lai’s teaching Upadhya’s device for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhya (US 20040188066A1) in view of Batty et al. (US 20100132923). Upadhya substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the vapor chamber comprises a duplicated passive wicking base microfluid heat spreader to form with the heat spreader of claim 1 to form an enclosure. Batty discloses (figures 5-7 and paragraphs 93 and 96) that the vapor chamber comprises two identical heat spreader (12), which is arranged in a mirror image fashion to contain a coolant for a purpose enabling both side of the vapor chamber to perform heat transfer services, while all interior surface of the channels capable of transporting working fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Batty’s teaching in Upadhya’s device for a purpose of enabling both side of the vapor chamber to perform heat transfer services, while all interior surface of the channels capable of transporting working fluid.
Claims 1-2,5,9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty et al. (US 20100132923) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2018/0128553A1). Batty discloses (figure 18) a passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader (10) comprising a monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features, wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes a substrate (12) and features (16,160) having two or more different vertical feature heights above the substrate (paragraph 121); wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features does not include any wafer-to-wafer bonds (no wafer to wafer bonds is shown or described); wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes features having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more.(paragraph 87, height of features 16 is about 1/8 inches), wherein the two or more different vertical feature height above the surface provide fluid flow channels having two or more different fluid flow depths (flow channel formed between posts 160 have different depth with flow channel formed between shorter post 16) and the two or more different vertical feature height have two or more corresponding different functions. (the taller post 160 also function as a spacer with different than the shorter post 16). Regarding claim 1, Batty does not disclose that wicking features includes silicon substrate and silicon features. Lewis discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 50) a thermal ground plane heat spreader including a wick structure (120) with substrate (110) is made of copper, polymer or silicon, wherein the material such as silicon can reduce any risk of electrical conducting from any electrical device attached to the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lewis’s teaching in Batty’s device for a purpose of reducing any risk of electrical conducting from any electrical device attached to the device.
Regarding claim 2, Batty discloses (figure 18) that the wicking features include one or more pins (16, 160) that rise vertically from the substrate surface. Regarding claim 5, Batty discloses (figure 6) that one or more fluid passage (14) in the substrate (12). Regarding claim 9, Batty discloses (figures 2 and 5 or 6) a vapor chamber (10) that has a capping layer (30) disposed to form an enclosure with the passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader as in claim 1 and an evaporation coolant disposed in the enclosure (paragraph 71, working fluid in either liquid phase, vapor phase or both is in the enclosure).
Regarding claim 10, Batty discloses (figures 5, 6, 18 and paragraph 121) a vapor chamber that has a first and second passive wicking base-microfluidic heat spreaders, the first and the second passive wicking-base microfluid heat spreader are disposed to form an enclosure; and an evaporator coolant disposed in the enclosure. (paragraph 71).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty et al. (US 2010013923), Lewis (US 20180128553A1) and further in view of Wang Tien-Lai (US 6,477,045). Regarding claim 6, Batty and Lewis substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the at least one of the fluid passage is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate. Wang Tien-Lai discloses (figure 3) a vapor chamber that has a fluid passage (26) is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate (24) for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber. (column 2, lines 62-65)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Wang Tien-Lai’s teaching in the combination device of Batty and Lewis for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty et al. (US 2010013923) and Lewis (US 2018/0128553A1) and further in view of Sliwa et al. (US 4,322,737). Batty and Lewis substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the at least one of the fluid passage is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate. Sliwa discloses (figure 5) a vapor chamber that has a fluid passage (52) is configured as a hole passing vertically through the substrate for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber from a gas reservoir (48) (see figure 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Sliwa ’s teaching in the combination device of Batty and Sliwa for a purpose of allowing a working fluid to flow into the vapor chamber from a gas reservoir.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20160161193), herein after Lewis’s 193 in view of Batty (US 20100132923) and Lewis et al (US 2018/0128553A1), herein after Lewis’s 553 . Lewis’s 193 discloses (figures 1A-2b) a passive wicking-based microfluid heat spreader comprising a monolithically a passive wicking-based microfluidic heat spreader (100) comprising a monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features (pillars 120), wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes a substrate (base that has wicking features 120 formed there on); wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features (120) does not include any wafer-to-wafer bonds (no wafer to wafer bonds is shown or described on pillars 120). Regarding claim 1, Lewis does not disclose that the pillars having two or more different vertical feature heights above the substrate provide fluid flow channels having two or more different fluid flow depths and having two or more corresponding different functions; and wherein the monolithically microfabricated array of wicking features includes features having a vertical feature height of 150 microns or more. Batty discloses (figures 2 and 18) a vapor chamber that has the wick structure includes features (16, 160) having two or more vertical heights providing fluid flow channels having two or more different fluid flow depths, and the features have two or more corresponding different functions (flow channel formed between posts 160 have different depth with flow channel formed between shorter post 16) and the two or more different vertical feature height have two or more corresponding different functions. (the taller post 160 also function as a spacer with different than the shorter post 16). and a vertical feature height (56) is more than 150 microns (paragraphs 80, 81 and 88) for a purpose of optimizing the flow of vapor from the hotter region to the cooler region and the flow of liquid from the cooler region to the hotter region.
Batty does not disclose that wicking features includes silicon substrate and silicon features. Lewis’s 553 discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 50) a thermal ground plane heat spreader including a wick structure (120) with substrate (110) is made of copper, polymer or silicon, wherein the material such as silicon is a semiconductor material that has a similar thermal expansion with any semiconductor electrical device attached to it and silicon can also reduce any risk of electrical conducting from any electrical device attached to the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lewis’s teaching in Batty’s device for a purpose of matching thermal expansion to any semiconductor electrical device attached to it and also help to reduce any risk of electrical conducting from any electrical device attached to the device.
Regarding claim 2, Lewis’s 193 discloses (figures 1A-2B) that the wicking features include one or more pins that rise vertically from the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 5, Lewis’s 193 discloses (figures 1A-1B) that one or more fluid passage (grooves formed between the pins in the substrate) in the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Lewis’ 193 discloses (figure 17) that one or more vertical vias formed through the substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Lewis’s 193 discloses (figure 1A) a vapor chamber that has a capping layer (top layer) discloses to form an enclosure with the passive wicking based microfluidic heat spreader (bottom layer).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis’s 193 does not disclose that a first passive wicking based microfluidic heat spreader and a second passive wicking based microfluidic heat spreader are disposed to form an enclosure to contain an evaporative coolant disposed in the enclosure. Batty discloses (figures 5- 7, and paragraphs 93 and 96) that the vapor chamber is formed by two a top passive wicking based microfluid heat spreader (12) and a second passive wicking based microfluidic heat spreader (12) to form an enclosure ion a mirror image fashion, which contains an evaporative coolant for a purpose of enabling both upper and lower surface of the vapor chamber capable of performing heat transfer service.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et (US 20160161193), Lewis’s 553 and Batty (US 20100132923) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ramiah et al. (US 20100127394). Lewis’s 193, Lewis’s 553 and Batty substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that a height/width aspect ratio of at least one of the vertical vias is 10 or more. However, applicant does not disclose any criticality or any unexpected result for having the range of the vertical vias is 10 or more, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the aspect ratio as claimed such as 10 or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, Ramiah discloses (the last 10 lines of paragraph 16) a high aspect ratio vias (29) is in the range of 10 to 20 or higher as desirable for a purpose of forming many more vias within the same area of substrate since the higher the aspect ratio, the less each vias occupies less substrate areas than lower the aspect ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ramiah’s teaching in the combination device of Lewis’s 193, Lewis’s 553 and Batty for a purpose of forming many more vias within the same area of substrate since the higher the aspect ratio, the less each vias occupies less substrate areas than lower the aspect ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim Gerald Ho (US 20180019179A1) discloses a silicon-based heat dissipation device..
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763