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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the third sentence of paragraph [0035], “HS 2 2” should be “HS 2”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner has interpreted “about 45% to about 90%” as “about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees”. Please write out the word “degrees” to avoid confusion or text conversion error.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner has interpreted “about 45% to about 90%” as “about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees”. Please write out the word “degrees” to avoid confusion or text conversion error.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner has interpreted “about 45% to about 90%” as “about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees”. Please write out the word “degrees” to avoid confusion or text conversion error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 3 recites “an angle in a range of about 45% {degrees} to about 90% {degrees}”, measured from the second terminus”. The Examiner interprets “the second terminus” to be, potentially, a single point (for example the right-most end, in the positive x-direction, of length 110 depicted in Fig 1A), which is inadequate to determine an angle. Taking support from Fig 1A and paragraph [0042], and inferring that “the first wall” is the wall of the vapor channel (or heat transfer portion) to which the gate is attached (“the first wall” not being clearly associated with a number on the figure), one may infer a vector in the positive x-direction from point of attachment of the gate to the second terminus (parallel to line 110; Fig 1A). An angle may then be measured from this vector, which the line A-A’ intersects at 90 degrees, with a vertex at the point of attachment of the gate and opening downward, in the negative y-direction, to define the angle). It appears that the depiction of gate 114 is at an angle (120; Fig 1A) of about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees from said vector, which is consistent with this interpretation. However, the claim language is not adequate to enable straightforward and clear determination of potential infringement, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the angle to be measured in the inferred manner explained above.
Claim 12 recites “an angle in a range of about 45% {degrees} to about 90% {degrees}”, measured from the second terminus”. In exactly the same manner as explained under claim 3, the claim language is not adequate to enable straightforward and clear determination of potential infringement, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the angle to be measured in the manner explained above for claim 3.
Claim 20 recites “an angle in a range of about 45% {degrees} to about 90% {degrees}”, measured from the second terminus”. In exactly the same manner as explained under claim 3, the claim language is not adequate to enable straightforward and clear determination of potential infringement, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the angle to be measured in the manner explained above for claim 3.
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, 3-4, 9, 12-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an apparatus (200; Figs 2A-2D; ¶ [0021-43]) comprising:
a heat transfer portion (vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-33]) having a first terminus (240a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032]) and a second terminus (240b; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032]), and a width (in the y-direction; Fig 2C), the first terminus and second terminus separated by a length (in the x-direction; Figs 2A,2C);
the heat transfer portion including a vapor channel (234; Fig 2A), a wick material (232;Fig 2A), and a working fluid (¶ [0033-34]); and
a gate attached (baffle 238a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0035]) to a support structure (top plate 235; Fig 2A; ¶ [0035]) within the heat transfer portion, the gate located between the first terminus and the second terminus (Figs 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the gate is oriented at an angle in a range of about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees, measured from the second terminus (baffle 238a is shown at an angle of about 90 degrees from the plane defined by top plate 235 in Fig 2C).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first terminus (240a; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through thermally conductive bonding material 218; ¶ [0030]) via a first cavity (the volume of vapor space 236a, and wick layer 232 directly below it, left of baffle 238a, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-36]) to a first heat source (die 204a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]) and the second terminus (240b; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through 218) via a second cavity (the volume of vapor space 236c, and wick layer 232 directly below it, right of baffle 238b, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0036]) to a second heat source (die 204b; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses a system, comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (208; Fig 2A; ¶ [0027]);
a first heat source (die 204a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]) attached to the PCB;
a second heat source (die 204b; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]) attached to the PCB, wherein the second heat source is separated from the first heat source by a distance (in the x-direction; Figs 2A);
a cooling apparatus (vapor chamber 230; Figs 2A-2D; ¶ [0021-43]) extending from the first heat source to the second heat source, the cooling apparatus thermally coupled (through thermally conductive bonding material 218; ¶ [0029]) to the first heat source and thermally coupled to the second heat source (through 218), the cooling apparatus comprising:
a heat transfer portion (230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-33]) having a first terminus (240a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032]) and a second terminus (240b; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032]), and a width (in the y-direction; Fig 2C), the first terminus and second terminus separated by the distance;
the heat transfer portion including a vapor channel (234; Fig 2A), a wick material (232;Fig 2A), and a working fluid (¶ [0033-34]); and
a gate attached (baffle 238a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0035]) to a support structure (top plate 235; Fig 2A; ¶ [0035]) within the heat transfer portion, the gate located between the first terminus and the second terminus (Figs 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the gate is oriented at an angle in a range of about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees, measured from the second terminus (baffle 238a is shown at an angle of about 90 degrees from the plane defined by top plate 235 in Fig 2C).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the first terminus (240a; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through thermally conductive bonding material 218; ¶ [0030]) via a first cavity (the volume of vapor space 236a, and wick layer 232 directly below it, left of baffle 238a, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-36]) to the first heat source (die 204a; Fig 2A) and the second terminus (240b; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through 218) via a second cavity (the volume of vapor space 236c, and wick layer 232 directly below it, right of baffle 238b, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0036]) to the second heat source (die 204b; Fig 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising an integrated circuit component (die 204a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]) attached to the printed circuit board (208; Fig 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 6, 11, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the gate is located in a range of about 30% to about 70% of the length, measured from the second terminus. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have located the gate in this range. Chang discloses that the apparatus 200 comprises two or more die (¶ [0022]), and one or more baffles (gates), wherein the baffle(s) prevent or reduce thermal crosstalk between the die (¶ [0039]), and wherein for the exemplary case having three die, two baffles are depicted as being located between the die at approximately 30 and 70% of the length between 240a and 240b (Fig 2E). It would be reasonable to expect that for the case having two die, with one baffle between them, that the baffle may be located at approximately 50% of the length for similarly sized die and between 30 – 70% for a range of different sized dies.
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose in the cited embodiment further comprising a plurality of pillars in the vapor channel and oriented perpendicular to an upper surface of the apparatus. However, Chang discloses in another embodiment a plurality of pillars (posts 309; Fig 3A; ¶ [0045]) in a vapor channel and oriented perpendicular to an upper surface of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to have included the posts in the apparatus of claim 1. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent collapse of the vapor chamber at lower than atmosphere pressure (Chang; ¶ [0045]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structure of the apparatus of Fig 3A and the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the gate is located in a range of about 30% to about 70% of the distance, measured from the second terminus. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have located the gate in this range. Chang discloses that the system comprises two or more die (¶ [0022]), and one or more baffles (gates), wherein the baffle(s) prevent or reduce thermal crosstalk between the die (¶ [0039]), and wherein for the exemplary case having three die, two baffles are depicted as being located between the die at approximately 30 and 70% of the length between 240a and 240b (Fig 2E). It would be reasonable to expect that for the case having two die, with one baffle between them, that the baffle may be located at approximately 50% of the length for similarly sized die and between 30 – 70% for a range of different sized dies.
Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, but does not disclose in the cited embodiment further comprising a plurality of pillars in the vapor channel and oriented perpendicular. However, Chang discloses in another embodiment a plurality of pillars (posts 309; Fig 3A; ¶ [0045]) in a vapor channel and oriented perpendicular. It would have been obvious to have included the posts in the apparatus of claim 15. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent collapse of the vapor chamber at lower than atmosphere pressure (Chang; ¶ [0045]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structure of the cooling apparatus of Fig 3A and the cooling apparatus of claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising a computing system 2000 (for example, a tablet), which houses the system of claim 9 (Fig 10; ¶ [0063-68]), but does not specifically disclose a housing enclosing the printed circuit board, the cooling apparatus, the first heat source and the second heat source. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a housing (such as a table outer case) would be used to house the system.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang) in view of Lee; Hsing-Chung (US 2010/0309940; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the gate (baffle 238a; Fig 2A) occludes from about 30% to about 70% of the vapor channel. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the gate to occlude an amount in this range for the following reason:
Chang discloses the baffle restricts vapor flow, but do not block a flow of liquid through the wick (Figs 2A,2B; ¶ [0039]). Chang also provides an exemplary ratio of baffle width L2 as compared to vapor chamber width L1 of 20-35 mm (L2) to 40-60 mm (L1) or 33%-88%.
Chang does not disclose a height of the baffle as compared to a height of the vapor chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a vapor chamber (48; Figs 4,6; ¶ [0031-32]) having a height of 3 mm and comprising a wick preferably of thickness 0.4 mm, that is, a height of the wick is about 13% of the height of the chamber. It would be reasonable to use this at least as a starting point for optimization for a height of the wick of Chang, because it is a related vapor chamber in the same field of endeavor. Then, combined with a wick thickness proportion of Lee, the baffle of Chang (filling a height above the wick) would occlude about 87% (height) times 33-88% (width) or 29% to 77% of the vapor channel, perhaps with further optimization. This constitutes an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 5. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the gate (baffle 238a; Fig 2A) occludes from about 30% to about 70% of vapor flow. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the gate to occlude an amount in this range for the following reason:
Chang discloses the baffle restricts vapor flow (Figs 2A,2B; ¶ [0039]), and provides an exemplary ratio of baffle width L2 as compared to vapor chamber width L1 of 20-35 mm (L2) to 40-60 mm (L1) or 33%-88%.
Chang does not disclose a height of the baffle as compared to a height of the vapor chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a vapor chamber (48; Figs 4,6; ¶ [0031-32]) having a height of 3 mm and comprising a wick preferably of thickness 0.4 mm, that is, a height of the wick is about 13% of the height of the chamber. It would be reasonable to use this at least as a starting point for optimization for a height of the wick of Chang, because it is a related vapor chamber in the same field of endeavor. Then, combined with a wick thickness proportion of Lee, the baffle of Chang (filling a height above the wick) would occlude about 87% (height) times 33-88% (width) or 29% to 77% of the vapor channel or of vapor flow, perhaps with further optimization. This constitutes an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 14. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang) in view of Wang; De-Yu (US 2010/0319881; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a plurality of fibers oriented laterally in the vapor channel.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses a vapor chamber (12; Fig 2; ¶ [0018]) comprising a plurality of fibers (supporting wires 142; Fig 5A; ¶ [0021-22]), oriented laterally (each having an axis parallel to base 15 and cover 16; Fig 2; ¶ [0021]) in the vapor channel. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the supporting wires of Wang with the apparatus of claim 1. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent deformation of the vapor chamber (Wang; ¶ [0006, 0027]), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structure of the vapor chambers of Wang and Chang in the similar endeavors.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang) in view of Hurbi; Erin Elizabeth et al. (US 2018/0356156; hereinafter Hurbi).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first terminus (240a; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through thermally conductive bonding material 218; ¶ [0030]) via a first cavity (the volume of vapor space 236a, and wick layer 232 directly below it, left of baffle 238a, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-36]) to a first die (die 204a; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]) and the second terminus (240b; Fig 2A) is thermally coupled (through 218) via a second cavity (the volume of vapor space 236c, and wick layer 232 directly below it, right of baffle 238b, and comprising the surrounding plate and sidewall portions of the vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0036]) to a second die (die 204b; Fig 2A; ¶ [0022-24]).
PNG
media_image2.png
479
965
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang does not disclose the first die is a graphics processing unit and the second die is a central processing unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Hurbi discloses a related apparatus (Figs 2A,2C; entire document) comprising a first chamber (104; Figs 2A,2C; ¶ [0028,0066]) thermally coupled to a graphics processing unit (250; Fig 2A; ¶ [0059]) and a second chamber (102; Figs 2A,2C; ¶ [0028,0066]) thermally coupled to a central processing unit (microprocessor 250; Fig 2A; ¶ [0059]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the configuration of Chang with die of Hurbi such that the first die is a graphics processing unit and the second die is a central processing unit. One would have been motivated to do this because these are well-known and common types of die in the art and because of the similar structures of Chang and Hurbi each having a vapor chamber partitioned into sections in communication with one another (separated by a baffle in Chang, or by a wall 170 {¶ 0066} in Hurbi). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses the system of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the first heat source is a graphics processing unit and the second heat source is a central processing unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Hurbi discloses a related cooling apparatus (Figs 2A,2C; entire document) comprising a first chamber (104; Figs 2A,2C; ¶ [0028,0066]) thermally coupled to a graphics processing unit (250; Fig 2A; ¶ [0059]) and a second chamber (102; Figs 2A,2C; ¶ [0028,0066]) thermally coupled to a central processing unit (microprocessor 250; Fig 2A; ¶ [0059]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the configuration of Chang with heat sources of Hurbi such that the first heat source is a graphics processing unit and the second heat source is a central processing unit. One would have been motivated to do this because these are well-known and common in the art and because of the similar structures of Chang and Hurbi each having a vapor chamber partitioned into sections in communication with one another (separated by a baffle in Chang, or by a wall 170 {¶ 0066} in Hurbi). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures in the similar endeavors.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu; Zhihai Zack (US 8654530; hereinafter Yu) in view of Chang; Je-Young et al. (US 2020/0350229; hereinafter Chang) and Ho; Chau Van et al. (US 2020/0387202; hereinafter Ho).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses a device (for example, a computer; Col 6, lines 14-24) comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (412; Fig 4; Col 5, lines 1-15)
a first heat source (integrated circuit 408; Fig 4; Col 4, lines 62-67) and a second heat source (integrated circuit 410; Fig 4; Col 4, lines 62-67) attached to the PCB, the first heat source separated from the second heat source by a distance (along the direction of the parallel lines 414; Fig 4);
a cooling apparatus (system 400; Fig 4; Col 4, line 62 – Col 5, line 35; see also, Figs 1-3, entire document, Fig 4 being exemplary) extending from the first heat source to the second heat source, the cooling apparatus thermally coupled to the first heat source and thermally coupled to the second heat source (to each in order to transfer heat between them; Col 4, lines 62-63; in thermal communication, Claim 1), the cooling apparatus comprising:
a heat transfer portion (heat transfer medium about which 402 is formed; Fig 4; Col 4, lines 62-67) having length substantially equal to the distance (as shown in Fig 4 and associated description), a first terminus (at approximately the integrated circuit 408; Fig 4) a second terminus (at approximately the integrated circuit 410; Fig 4), and a width (orthogonal to the direction of the distance);
the heat transfer portion including a vapor channel (Claim 1; 121; Fig 1; Col 2, lines 1-7; Fig 3, Col 36 – Col 4, line 7), and a working fluid (fluid or coolant; Col 4, lines 5-7).
Yu does not disclose (1) a housing surrounding the printed circuit board, (2) a wick material, and
(3) a gate within the heat transfer portion, the gate located between the first terminus and the second terminus.
Regarding (1), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included at least an outer housing for the device, for example a case for the computer, which would surround the circuit board and facilitate a human interface, as is well-known and common in the art.
Regarding (2), in the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses a vapor chamber (vapor chamber 230; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-33]) comprising a wick material (232; Fig 2A; ¶ [0032-33]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have included a wick material in the vapor chamber of Yu. One would have been motivated to do this because a wick material is a well-known and common component of a vapor chamber in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the vapor chamber and wick are well-known in the art, and Yu’s disclosure has no limitation to preclude it.
Regarding (3), in the same field of endeavor, Ho discloses a vapor chamber (114; Fig 1E; ¶ [0016,0026]) comprising a gate (116B; Fig 1E; ¶ [0016,0026]) within a heat transfer portion (114A,114C; Fig 1E), the gate located between a first integrated circuit (processor 108; Fig 1E; ¶ [0025]) and a second integrated circuit (graphics processing unit 128; Fig 1E; ¶ [0025]) to control a flow of heat between them according to a thermal management system (¶ [0027-29]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the thermal management system and associated gate of Ho with the device of Yu, the gate being similarly located between the first integrated circuit and second integrated circuit of Chang, that is, between the first terminus and the second terminus. One would have been motivated to do this in order to most effectively manage heat generated by multiple components included in the device (Ho; ¶ [0031-44]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar components in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Chang and Ho discloses the device of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the gate is located in a range of about 30% to about 70% of the length, measured from the second terminus. However, it would have been obvious to have located the gate with this range at least based upon a finding through routine experimentation and particular application and performance requirements. Yu is silent in regards to the precise location of the gate, depicting the gate between 108 and 128 in Fig 1E, and indicating various flexibilities in regards to location and number of gates according to the application (¶ [0029-30]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have calculated and/or experimented to determine the precise location most effective for the particular application in consideration of other factors such as cost and complexity. Since 30%-70% represents 40% of the possibilities around the midpoint between the two integrated circuits, it is reasonable to expect the gate may be located there.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims,
and with appropriate action leading to withdrawal of the claim objection, and with adequate resolution to and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including
“the first heat source separated from the second heat source by a distance;
a cooling apparatus extending from the first heat source to the second heat source, the cooling apparatus thermally coupled to the first heat source and thermally coupled to the second heat source, the cooling apparatus comprising:
a heat transfer portion having a length substantially equal to the distance,
a first terminus, a second terminus, and a width;
the heat transfer portion including a vapor channel, a wick material, and a working fluid; and
a gate within the heat transfer portion, the gate located between the first terminus and the second terminus;
wherein the gate is oriented at an angle of about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees, measured from the second terminus.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnes; Philip Lionel et al. (US 9291399; the prior art discloses a device comprising a control element (valve, diverter) configured to regulate transfer of a working fluid between a heat-collecting element and a heat-rejection element);
Yu; Zhihai Zack (US 7800905; the prior art discloses a flat vapor chamber apparatus and method for transferring heat between integrated circuits).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817