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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Translation of TW201506341A) in view of Antonijevic (US PG Pub. 2007/0096611A1) in view of Huang (Translation of CN202182665U) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 20190033006A1), hereinafter referred to as Sun, Antonijevic, Huang and Lin, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Sun discloses a vapor chamber structure comprising
a main body, the main body having multiple independent horizontally spaced-apart heat dissipation blocks (shown in figure 8 being the two chambers (200) that are separated in a horizontal direction),
each of the heat dissipation blocks having an internal independent airtight chamber (the chambers (200) are “separated and independent”),
a capillary structure (3) being disposed on an inner wall face of the airtight chamber (“Forming a chamber 200 (as shown in the third figure), the inner wall of the chamber 200 may further be provided with capillary structure 3, and sealed with a suitable amount of working fluid (not shown)”),
a working fluid being filled in the airtight chamber (see previous annotation), a connection body (shown in figure 8, being the portion of the plate that separates the independent chambers (200)) being disposed between the independent heat dissipation blocks to connect the independent heat dissipation blocks with each other (shown in figure 8),
at least one side of each of the heat dissipation blocks being formed with a heated section correspondingly in contact with at least one of a multiple heat sources for conducting heat (4, shown in figure 8).
Sun fails to disclose multiple connection bodies and the vapor chamber structure being characterized in that at least one heat insulation penetrating slot is formed between each two adjacent connection bodies, the heat insulation penetrating slot separating the heat dissipation blocks from each other so as to achieve heat insulation effect.
Antonijevic, also drawn to a heat exchanger having multiple heat exchanging portions, teaches multiple connection bodies (6) and at least one heat insulation penetrating slot (“The shape of the recesses 5 is slot-like”, ¶45) is formed between each two adjacent connection bodies (6, shown at least in figure 4), the heat insulation penetrating slot separating the heat dissipation portions from each other so as to achieve heat insulation effect (“Hence high temperature differences can occur between neighboring flow channels that cause high heat conduction losses between the flow channels”, ¶7, see also ¶15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Antonijevic, the motivation being that “by reducing the material cross-section in the flat tube, heat conduction along the flow direction of the fluid that passes around the flat tube along its width is reduced. That yields significantly enhanced heat transmission efficiency”, ¶24.
Sun fails to disclose a heated section correspondingly in contact with at least one of a multiple heat sources for conducting heat, wherein the heated sections are disposed at different vertical heights.
Huang, also drawn to a vapor chamber for multiple heat sources, teaches a heated section (11, 11’) correspondingly in contact with at least one of a multiple heat sources for conducting heat, wherein the heated sections are disposed at different vertical heights (shown in figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Huang, the motivation being to “the average temperature plate structure 1 can make the first heating element 110 and second heating element 120 of the generated heat is quickly conducted to the fin 200 and through fins 200 to the outside world”, ¶74, or to increase the flexibility of the heat exchange device by allowing for thermal dissipation from multiple heat generating components of non-uniform height, thereby mitigating damage of said heat generating devices due to excessive temperatures.
Sun fails to disclose at least one of the heat dissipation blocks includes a projecting portion extending from the airtight chamber, the projecting portion providing enhanced structural support and improved heat conduction efficiency to the capillary structure and working fluid.
Lin, also drawn to a vapor chamber for cooling, teaches at least one of the heat dissipation blocks (shown in figure 12) includes a projecting portion (132, 134) extending from the airtight chamber (34), the projecting portion providing enhanced structural support and improved heat conduction efficiency to the capillary structure and working fluid (“The ribs 132, 134 create secondary gas flow passages 70 interconnecting two or more primary gas flow passages 66, thereby providing improved flow distribution of the gaseous working fluid across the surface area of vapor chamber 10”, ¶108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Lin, the motivation being to provide improved flow distribution of the gaseous working fluid across the surface area of vapor chamber.
Regarding limitations “providing enhanced structural support and improved heat conduction efficiency to the capillary structure and working fluid” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the function of the projecting portion not the structure of the projecting portion, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Translation of TW201506341A) in view of Antonijevic (US PG Pub. 2007/0096611A1) in view of Huang (Translation of CN202182666U) and in further view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 20190099006A1), as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Lewis et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0106554A1) hereinafter referred to as Lewis.
Regarding Claim 2, although Sun further discloses the main body has a first plate body (1) and a second plate body (2), the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers (shown in figure 8), Sun fails to disclose the first plate body being formed with multiple raised sections defining multiple raised section spaces, the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other to close the raised section spaces so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers.
Lewis, also drawn to a vapor chamber, teaches a first plate body being formed with multiple raised sections defining multiple raised section spaces (shown in figure 15, wherein the top plate comprises multiple raised portions). It is noted that the first and second plate bodies are taught by Sun, whereas Lewis teaches the addition of multiple raised sections on the top plate of a vapor chamber for conforming to an exterior casing or shell. A modified Sun having the multiple raised sections as taught by Lewis also teaches the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other to close the raised section spaces so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers, as the first and second plate bodies are joined and create the vapor chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Lewis, the motivation being to secure the vapor chamber by connecting to a device shell or outer casing with a variable height.
Regarding Claim 3, although Sun further discloses the second plate body (2) has an outer face and an inner face, the outer face being attached (shown in figure 8 and figure 5 for reference) to the heat source (4), the inner face being correspondingly connected with the first plate body (shown at least in figure 5), Sun fails to disclose the outer face being recessed toward the inner face to form the heated section.
Lewis, also drawn to a vapor chamber, teaches the outer face being recessed toward the inner face to form the heated section (shown in figure 15, wherein the bottom plate comprises multiple recessed portions that conform to heat sources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Lewis, the motivation being to provide thermal contact with multiple heat sources while also providing the vapor chamber with a flat bottom plate for attaching the vapor chamber to a mounting surface.
Alternately, Sun does disclose a second plate body having an outer face being recessed to form the heated section.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a need in the art to provide a contact surface to thermally join a heat source and a heat exchanger in order to regulate heat dissipation from the heat source to the heat exchanger, thereby mitigating degradation or failure of said heat source. Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. the contact surface being recessed outwards, inwards or aligned with the bottom plate of the heat exchanger, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. that the heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the heat source for providing thermal conduction from said source, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sun, by having the outer face being recessed toward the inner face to form the heated section in order to provide thermal contact with multiple heat sources while also providing the vapor chamber with a flat bottom plate for attaching the vapor chamber to a mounting surface, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Sun further teaches the heated section is recessed from the outer face of the second plate body toward the airtight chamber (shown in figure 15 of Lewis, wherein the bottom plate comprises multiple recessed portions that protrude upward).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Translation of TW201506341A) in view of Antonijevic (US PG Pub. 2007/0096611A1) in view of Huang (Translation of CN202182666U) and in further view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 20190099006A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Rush et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0281095A1) hereinafter referred to as Rush.
Regarding Claim 2, although Sun further discloses the main body has a first plate body (1) and a second plate body (2), the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers (shown in figure 8), Sun fails to disclose the first plate body being formed with multiple raised sections defining multiple raised section spaces, the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other to close the raised section spaces so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers.
Rush, also drawn to a vapor chamber, teaches a first plate body (being the top plate of the vapor chamber as shown in figure 7 of Rush) being formed with multiple raised sections defining multiple raised section spaces (shown in figure 7, wherein the top plate comprises multiple raised portions for connecting to components (720)) and a second plate body (being the bottom plate of the vapor chamber as shown in figure 7 of Rush). It is noted that the first and second plate bodies are taught by Sun, whereas Rush teaches the addition of multiple raised sections on the top plate of a vapor chamber for connecting to components. A modified Sun having the multiple raised sections as taught by Rush also teaches the first and second plate bodies being attached to each other to close the raised section spaces so as to form the aforesaid airtight chambers, as the first and second plate bodies are joined and create the vapor chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Rush, the motivation being to provide heat transfer to multiple heat sources with a single device and within a minimal space thereby mitigating degradation or failure of said heat sources.
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Sun further teaches the second plate body (being the bottom plate of the vapor chamber as shown in figure 7 of Rush) has an outer face and an inner face (shown in figure 7 of Rush), the outer face being attached to the heat source (720), the inner face being correspondingly connected with the first plate body (shown in figure 7 of Rush), the heated section is outward raised from the outer face of the second plate body in a direction away from the airtight chamber (shown in figure 7, wherein the two component side surfaces (780) extend away from the interior of the vapor chamber.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Translation of TW201506341A) in view of Antonijevic (US PG Pub. 2007/0096611A1) in view of Huang (Translation of CN202182666U) and in further view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 20190099006A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Chang et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0018128), hereinafter referred to as Chang.
Regarding Claim 4, Sun fails to disclose the airtight chambers are connected with a water-filling air-sucking tube.
Chang, also drawn to a vapor chamber, teaches the chambers (6 and 7) are connected with a water-filling air-sucking tube (18 and 19, which are respectively connected to the two separate parts (6 and 7)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Chang, the motivation being to provide separate working fluids to the device or to provide the separate and sealed chambers with the working fluid at different steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding limitations “water-filling air-sucking” recited in Claim 4, which are directed to the utilization of a tube and not the tube structure, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Translation of TW201506341A) in view of Antonijevic (US PG Pub. 2007/0096611A1) in view of Huang (Translation of CN202182666U) and in further view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 20190099006A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Hurbi et al (US PG Pub. 2018/0356156A1), hereinafter referred to as Hurbi.
Regarding Claim 5, Sun fails to disclose the airtight chambers have unequal capacities.
Hurbi, also drawn to a heat exchanger, teaches chambers have unequal capacities (shown in figure 5B, wherein the first chamber (540) has a different volume than the second chamber (545)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sun with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Hurbi, the motivation being to provide separate cooling capacities for predetermined heat sources or to provide cooling for differing heat source layouts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 6 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Introducing penetrating slots (31) that sever the loop would destroy Sun '341's directional circulation and render it inoperable for its stated purpose.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sun discloses a plurality of loops in figure 8 that are physically and fluidly separate, wherein penetrating slots between the separated loops would not render said loops inoperable. The fluid contained within a respective loop would still cycle through the enclosed space as shown in figure 8, if a slot is placed between the fluid flows paths. The slots or recesses (5) of Antonijevic are disclosed as being situated between adjacent flow paths for the explicit purpose of providing “reduced heat transmission” (¶15).
On Page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Antonijevic '611 is directed to single-phase liquid-cooled flat tubes. Its recesses (5) reduce lateral conduction in forced-convection liquid flow, not two-phase vapor chambers. Applying Antonijevic '611's liquid-cooling solution to Sun '341's vapor system would disrupt evaporation-condensation cycles and introduce vapor trapping-teaching away from the claimed isolation in a vapor environment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the Applicant states, the recesses of Antonijevic provide insulation for the working fluid flow paths or rather reduce heat conduction between working fluid flow paths. Applying the recesses of Antonijevic that are situated between flow paths to the area of Sun between the contained flow paths would in fact reduce lateral heat conduction thereby providing “significantly enhanced heat transmission efficiency”, (¶24 of Antonijevic).
On Page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Huang '665 teaches a single-chamber vapor chamber with interconnected airflow channels (32) to prevent dry-out. Huang '665 requires fluid communication between regions. The claimed penetrating slots (31) that completely block mass flow are directly contrary to Huang '665's interconnected design.” The penetrating slots are provided by Antonijevic in the modification of Sun, wherein Huang teaches it is old and well-known to cool multiple heat sources at different heights. In the present rejection, Huang is not modified to contain the penetrating slots. In response to applicant's argument that “The claimed penetrating slots (31) that completely block mass flow are directly contrary to Huang '665's interconnected design”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On Page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Lin '006 discloses solid support columns (52) in a single vapor chamber to prevent collapse under vacuum. Lin '006's columns are uniform-height, non- conductive supports-they do not teach or suggest a projecting portion of the capillary structure that extends from the chamber wall to improve heat conduction efficiency in independent, height-varying chambers.” The independent, height-varying chambers is taught by Huang as stated in the present rejection, wherein Lin teaches it is old and well-known to include projecting portions (132, 134) extending from the airtight chamber for improved flow distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art having read Lin would realize that each sealed chamber of Sun would benefit from increased flow distribution. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On Page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “-Antonijevic '611's motivation (reducing heat conduction) applies only to liquid- cooled tubes, not vapor chambers.
- Huang '665's motivation (increasing flexibility) is undermined by its
interconnected chambers, which teach away from complete isolation.
- Lin '006's motivation (enhanced support) addresses only single-chamber
collapse, unrelated to multi-chamber, height-varying, heat-conducting projections. Hence, the Examiner's analysis in reconstructing claim 1 requires cherry-picking unrelated features from four disparate fields (loop chambers, liquid-cooled tubes, single-chamber protrusions, support columns)-classic hindsight.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art having read Antonijevic would realize that the insulating recesses are applicable to provide insulation between any heat exchange fluid flows. The preferred phase of working fluid utilized by Sun or Antonijevic does not preclude the explicit teaching in Antonijevic that removing material between heat exchange fluid flows decreases thermal conduction between said fluid flows. Regarding Huang, any interconnected passageways in Huang, not proffered within the current claims or the current rejection, does not preclude the explicit teaching in Huang that a vapor chamber can be utilized to cool heat generating components at different heights. The separate fluid flow chambers are taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art having read Lin would realize that the enhanced support cited by the Applicant is directly applicable to each chamber of Sun, wherein the multiple chambers of Sun benefit from the explicitly disclosed enhanced support. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763