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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20060098411) in view of Chen (US20120216991).
Claim 1: Lee discloses a vapor chamber degassing tube structure (Figs. 1-5), comprising a first plate (12), comprising a recess portion (note central portion of 12) and a flange (12a) surrounding the recess portion, a receiving space (note space within central portion of 12) defined on the recess portion, the flange (12a) comprising a first side facing a same direction as the receiving space and a second side opposite to the first side (see Figs. 3-4), and a tube connector (12b) disposed protrusively from the second side and located on the flange (Figs. 3-4); a second plate (14), covering the recess portion of the first plate (Figs. 1 and 4), and connected with the flange (Figs. 1 and 4); and a degassing tube (16), disposed in the tube connector (Fig. 3); wherein a degassing opening is defined concavely on the first side and located on the tube connector (note opening within 12b), the degassing opening is inward shrunk and the first side of the flange is formed two opposite shrunk portions to form a shrunk degassing opening (Fig. 3, see Figure below, Examiner noting that the stamped flange operation will necessarily include the shrunk/constricted opening with facing shrunk portions), a maximum width of the degassing opening is defined in the tube connector and a minimum width of the degassing opening is defined between the two shrunk portions and the minimum width is less than the maximum width (Fig. 3, see Figure below) and the shrunk degassing opening is inserted by the degassing tube (note 16 in Fig. 3 and its resultant state in Fig. 1).
Lee is not deeply explicit about the process of the opening being inward shrunk to form two opposite shrunk portions or that the shrunk degassing opening is inserted by the degassing tube. However, Chen teaches a heat pipe arrangement (Figs. 3A-3C) which lays out the insertion of a tube (20) into an opening (11’; Fig. 3A/3B) after which the opening being inward shrunk to form two opposite shrunk portions (Fig. 3C, note portions 12). Such a connection prevents the tube from becoming loose over time (paragraphs 5-6). Chen’s teachings (namely Fig. 3C) incorporated into Lee tube/opening arrangement would nicely accommodate Lee’s second plate as it covers the first plate and make for the degassing tube to be tightly connected in the tube connector and reduce a gap therebetween without filling additional material (Examiner noting the flush fit in Chen’s Fig. 3C which utilizes no filler and has not gap). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the assembly teachings of Chen into the apparatus of Lee in order to keep the connection firm and tight and reduce the changes of the connection becoming loose.
PNG
media_image1.png
669
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Lee and Chen teach the previous limitations. Lee further discloses a wick structure (18) is disposed inside the first plate and the second plate.
Claim 3: Lee and Chen teach the previous limitations. Lee further discloses that multiple support structures (20) are disposed spacedly inside the first plate and the second plate.
Claim 4: Lee and Chen teach the previous limitations. Lee further discloses that the recess portion is indented from the first side of the flange to define the receiving space (Fig. 3).
Claim 5: Lee and Chen teach the previous limitations. Lee further discloses that the second plate (14) is a flat plate with a flat inner surface and a flat outer surface (Figs. 2-3).
Claim 7: Lee and Chen teach the previous limitations. Lee further discloses that the maximum width is substantially matching with an outer diameter of the degassing tube (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has newly utilized the Chen reference to account for the amendments to claim 1. While Examiner believes that Lee does in fact provide shrunk portions (notated above) oppositely arranged in the degassing opening, Chen outlines an enhanced assembly technique for a tube and opening which not only similarly provides for oppositely arranged shrunk portions but does so in a way that provides a tight connection between the tube and opening, reducing the joint from becoming loose.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights