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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/23/2023 and 3/04/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiangxi CN216017503U.
Re claim 1, Jiangxi teach support structure of heat dissipation unit, which is applicable in a heat dissipation unit having an upper plate (annotated fig) and a lower plate (annotated fig) together defining a chamber and having a first and a second capillary structure (annotated fig) arranged on inner surfaces of the upper and lower plates respectively, wherein two sides of the heat dissipation unit are respectively formed with a condensation side and an evaporation side (noting either side is capable of condensation or evaporation),
two ends (side walls sealing the chamber, left and right shown in cutaway fig 3) of the support structure respectively abutting against and connecting with the condensation side and the evaporation side,
the support structure comprising a base section (noting the term noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘section’ is a part that may be, is, or is viewed as separated, annotated fig) and a thorny section (annotated fig), the base section having a contact face (top contact face(s) on outer circumference relative to fig 2) directly contacting the first capillary structure and a support face (top contact face(s) in middle relative to fig 2), the thorny section being composed of multiple thorny columns (annotated fig) arranged on the support face of the base section in an array and each of the multiple thorny columns being arranged at intervals, whereby a passage is defined between each two adjacent thorny columns of the multiple thorny columns and each of the multiple thorny columns extending from the support face of the base section toward the lower plate (noting that three dimensional columns extend in all three directions to take up three dimensional volume) and having a free end directly in contact with the second capillary structure (fig 2),
the thorny section serving to speed vapor-liquid circulation and increase flowing speed of the working fluid so as to enhance heat dissipation performance (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing)..
PNG
media_image1.png
549
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
772
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Jiangxi teach wherein each thorny column of the multiple thorny columns is integrally disposed on the support face of the base section (fig 2).
Re claim 3, Jiangxi teach wherein the thorny columns are arranged on the support face of the base section at equal intervals (figs).
Re claim 4, Jiangxi teach wherein each thorny column of the multiple thorny columns is side by side disposed on the support face of the base section at intervals in an array (figs).
Re claim 6, Jiangxi teach wherein the heat dissipation unit is a vapor chamber (page 11 translation , para 4, page 8).
Re claim 7, Jiangxi teach wherein the widths of the passages between each thorny column of the multiple thorny columns are equal to each other (figs).
Re claim 8, Jiangxi teach wherein, a working fluid filled in the chamber, , the passages of the thorny section being in communication with the chamber, the upper and lower plates respectively serving as the condensation side and the evaporation side (page 8 translation, figs).
Re claim 9, Jiangxi teach a support structure of heat dissipation unit, which is applicable in a heat dissipation unit, the heat dissipation unit comprising an upper plate and a lower plate (annotated fig), the upper plate and the lower plate together defining a chamber, inner surfaces of the upper plate and the lower plate facing the chamber being respectively provided with a first capillary structure and a second capillary structure (annotated fig), two sides of the heat dissipation unit being respectively formed with a condensation side and an evaporation side (see the rejection of claim 1, figs), two ends of the support structure respectively abutting against and connecting with the condensation side and the evaporation side (figs), the support structure comprising a base section and a thorny section (annotated fig), the base section having a support face (top face), the base section directly contacting the second capillary structure (figs), the thorny section being composed of multiple thorny columns (annotated fig) arranged on the support face of the base section in an array, each of the multiple thorny columns being elongated and arranged at intervals, whereby a passage is defined between each two adjacent thorny columns of the multiple thorny columns, the thorny section extending from (noting that three dimensional columns extend in all three directions to take up three dimensional volume) the base section toward the upper plate and having a free end (figs), the free end directly contacting the first capillary structure, the thorny section serving to speed vapor-liquid circulation and increase flowing speed of the working fluid so as to enhance heat dissipation performance (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing).
PNG
media_image3.png
549
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
772
1072
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiangxi.
Re claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the base section and the thorny section are made of a material with high heat conductivity for increased heat transfer, 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, see reply, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jiangxi fails to teach the independent claims. However, the scope of the independent claims has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on a new rejection of record to teach the recited independent claims (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Jiangxi fail to teach the functional limitations of the independent claims (argument page 9). 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 that Jiangxi fail to teach the functional limitations of the independent claims.
I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
PNG
media_image5.png
18
19
media_image5.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_image5.png
18
19
media_image5.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.
The applicant argues that Jiangxi fail to teach “disposed on”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘on’ is used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with. Jiangxi clearly teach the broad limitations “disposed on” (see detailed rejection above).
The applicant argues that Jiangxi fail to teach “base section”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The very broad term “base section” is clearly taught by the prior art (see detailed rejection above).
The applicant argues that Jiangxi fail to teach “thorny columns”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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