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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Applicant's arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: positioning portion of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “portion” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “positioning”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification defines positioning portion, “the at least one positioning portion 221 a formed on the supporting column 22a is a cut-out slot or a notch.”. Therefore, the positioning portion will be construed as a cut-out slot or a notch, and/or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (CN 114199057 A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) in view of Zhang (US 20100294200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN discloses a supporting column securement structure (21, 22, and 30: see Figure 3) of a vapor chamber (see Figure 3), arranged inside a housing (11 and 12) comprising a chamber (space between 11 and 12), the supporting column securement structure comprising:
a supporting mesh (22 and/or 21), arranged inside the chamber (see Figure 3), comprising a plurality of through holes (23: see Figure 3); and
a plurality of supporting columns (30), each one of the supporting columns (30) comprising at least one positioning portion disposed on an outer perimeter thereof (31: see Figure 4), each one of the plurality of supporting columns (30) penetrating through a respective hole of the plurality of the through holes (23) and fitted with the respective hole via the at least one positioning portion (31) to be positioned on the supporting mesh (see Figures 2 and 3);
wherein two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an inner wall of the housing (see Figure 3 where at least two inner sides of 22 are distanced form inner wall of 11 and 12) while two ends of each supporting column are respectively attached on the inner wall (see Figure 3 where two ends of each 30 are respectively attached on the inner wall).
CHEN does not teach that the two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an upper inner wall and a lower inner wall of the housing while one end of each supporting column is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall.
Zhang teaches a supporting mesh (20: see Figures 3 and 4) of a vapor chamber, wherein two sides of the supporting mesh (20) keep a distance from an upper inner wall (upper inner wall of 11: see Figure 4) and a lower inner wall (lower inner wall of 11) of the housing (11) while one end of each supporting column (30) is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall (see ¶ [0021] and Figures 3 & 4).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vapor chamber of CHEN with the two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an upper inner wall and a lower inner wall of the housing while one end of each supporting column is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall, as taught by Zhang, since the simple substitution of one known element (one supporting mesh that is suspended in the middle of the vapor chamber taught via supporting column by Zhang) for another (two layers of supporting meshes each one is placed at one end of the supporting columns disclosed by CHEN) would have yielded predicable results, namely forming vapor passages through supporting mesh thus increasing the working fluid circulation (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415- 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the benefit of larger capillary force while simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion (31) is a cut-out slot or a notch (see 31 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion (31) is extended from one end surface of each one of the supporting columns (30) to another end surface of each one of the supporting columns (see in Figure 4 where 31 extended from one end to the other end).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion is extended from one end surface of each one of the supporting columns to a middle section position of each one of the supporting columns (see in Figure 4 where 31 extended from one end to the other end including the middle section (i.e. one groove that vertically divides 30 to two halves)).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a sectioned surface disposed on the middle section position, and the supporting mesh abuts against the sectioned surface (see in Figure 4 where the middle section (i.e. one groove that vertical divide 30 to two halves) comprises a sectioned surface for 21 and/or to abuts against. cf. Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion comprises a plurality of positioning portions (31), and the plurality of positioning portions are connected to each other in a wavy shape and arranged circumferentially on the outer perimeter (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a solid cylindrical shaft (see Figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a polygonal shaft, the at least one positioning portion comprises a plurality of positioning portions (31), and each one of the plurality of positioning portions is a corner of the polygonal shaft (see in Figure 4 where 30 is a polygonal shaft and each of 31 is a corner of the polygonal shaft).
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (CN 114199057 A: Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) in view of Zhang (US 20100294200 A1).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN discloses a vapor chamber (see Figure 3), comprising: a housing (11 and 12), comprising a chamber (space between 11 and 12); and a supporting column securement structure (21, 22, and 30: see Figure 3), arranged inside the chamber (see Figure 2) and comprising:
a supporting mesh (22 and/or 21), comprising a plurality of through holes (23: see Figure 3); and a plurality of supporting columns (30), each one of the supporting columns (30) comprising at least one positioning portion disposed on an outer perimeter thereof (31: see Figure 4), each one of the plurality of supporting columns (30) penetrating through a respective hole of the plurality of the through holes (23) and fitted with the respective hole via the at least one positioning portion (31) to be positioned on the supporting mesh (see Figures 2 and 3);
wherein two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an inner wall of the housing (see Figure 3 where at least two inner sides of 22 are distanced form inner wall of 11 and 12) while two ends of each supporting column are respectively attached on the inner wall (see Figure 3 where two ends of each 30 are respectively attached on the inner wall).
CHEN does not teach that the two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an upper inner wall and a lower inner wall of the housing while one end of each supporting column is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall.
Zhang teaches a supporting mesh (20: see Figures 3 and 4) of a vapor chamber, wherein two sides of the supporting mesh (20) keep a distance from an upper inner wall (upper inner wall of 11: see Figure 4) and a lower inner wall (lower inner wall of 11) of the housing (11) while one end of each supporting column (30) is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall (see ¶ [0021] and Figures 3 & 4).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the vapor chamber of CHEN with the two sides of the supporting mesh keep a distance from an upper inner wall and a lower inner wall of the housing while one end of each supporting column is attached on the inner upper wall and another end of each supporting column is attached on the lower inner wall, so that the supporting mesh extends in parallel between the upper inner wall and the lower inner wall without touching the upper inner wall or the lower inner wall, as taught by Zhang, since the simple substitution of one known element (one supporting mesh that is suspended in the middle of the vapor chamber taught via supporting column by Zhang) for another (two layers of supporting meshes each one is placed at one end of the supporting columns disclosed by CHEN) would have yielded predicable results, namely forming vapor passages through supporting mesh thus increasing the working fluid circulation (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415- 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the benefit of larger capillary force while simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 10, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the housing comprises an upper cover (12) and a lower cover (11) attached to each other (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion (31) is a cut-out slot or a notch (see 31 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion (31) is extended from one end surface of each one of the supporting columns (30) to another end surface of each one of the supporting columns (see in Figure 4 where 31 extended from one end to the other end).
Regarding claim 13, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion is extended from one end surface of each one of the supporting columns to a middle section position of each one of the supporting columns (see in Figure 4 where 31 extended from one end to the other end including the middle section (i.e. one groove that vertical divide 30 to two halves)).
Regarding claim 14, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a sectioned surface disposed on the middle section position, and the supporting mesh abuts against the sectioned surface (see in Figure 4 where the middle section (i.e. one groove that vertically divides 30 to two halves) comprises a sectioned surface for 21 to abut against. cf. Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein the at least one positioning portion comprises a plurality of positioning portions (31), and the plurality of positioning portions are connected to each other in a wavy shape and arranged circumferentially on the outer perimeter (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a solid cylindrical shaft (see Figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, CHEN as modified further discloses wherein each one of the supporting columns (30) comprises a polygonal shaft, the at least one positioning portion comprises a plurality of positioning portions (31), and each one of the plurality of positioning portions is a corner of the polygonal shaft (see in Figure 4 where 30 is a polygonal shaft and each of 31 is a corner of the polygonal shaft).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on (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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763