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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 1 is rejected for the limitation of “a plurality of first grooves provided on the first body surface and communicating with the penetration space” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, based upon the figures it is unclear where or what the grooves are made of or are located. It is unclear if the grooves are located into the first body surface or if they are located “on” the first body surface. The first is NOT shown in the figures so not clearly supported in the specification, the second interpretation would be the grooves are located in the “land” element which does NOT appear in claim 1 (it doesn’t appear in the claims till claim 7). This is additionally unclear to one skilled in the art as it is claimed it would be a hollow space in a hollow space (grooves in a penetration space). The claim will be examined as the claim includes the grooves are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claim 1 to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 1 the limitation of “the penetration space includes a first opening positioned on the first body surface and a second opening positioned on the second body surface” is unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, applicant is claiming openings in an open space. There is no structure to limit these openings and at best as claimed is an unclear region of the open penetration space. As previously noted, this is unclear to one skilled in the art as it is claimed it would be a hollow space in a hollow space. The claim will be examined as the claim includes the openings are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claim 1 to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 2 the limitation of “the penetration space includes a first space depressed portion disposed on the first body surface and defining the first opening” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, based upon the figures it is unclear where or what the depressed portion is. Applicant describes it as “disposed on the first body surface and defining the first opening” but this does not make clear how the depression is made of or located (what is actually depressed). This is additionally unclear to one skilled in the art as it is claimed it would be a hollow space in a hollow space (depression in a penetration space). The claim will be examined as the claim includes the depression are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claims to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 2 the limitation of “a second space depressed portion disposed on the second body surface and defining the second opening” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, based upon the figures it is unclear where or what the depressed portion is. Applicant describes it as “disposed on the second body surface and defining the second opening” but this does not make clear how the depression is made of or located (what is actually depressed). This is additionally unclear to one skilled in the art as it is claimed it would be a hollow space in a hollow space (depression in a penetration space). The claim will be examined as the claim includes the depression are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claims to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 2 the limitation of “the first space depressed portion includes a pair of first wall surfaces curved in a concave shape, wherein the second space depressed portion includes a pair of second wall surfaces curved in a concave shape” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, applicant is claiming wall surfaces but there are not part of any claimed structure (once again the “land” has yet to be claimed. Applicant is claiming part of a structure that has not been clearly claimed yet. The claim will be examined as the claim includes the shapes are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claims to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 2 the limitation of “the first wall surface and the second wall surface corresponding to each other are connected by a wall-surface protrusion protruding toward inside of the penetration space” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, applicant is claiming wall surfaces but there are not part of any claimed structure (once again the “land” has yet to be claimed. Applicant is claiming part of a structure that has not been clearly claimed yet. The claim will be examined as the claim includes the connection/protrusions are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claims to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Similarly in Claim 2 the limitation of “a flat surface having a flat shape connecting the second wall surface and the wall-surface protrusion corresponding to each other” as the language used leave the structure unclear to one skilled in the art. Specifically, applicant is claiming wall surfaces but there are not part of any claimed structure (once again the “land” has yet to be claimed. Applicant is claiming part of a structure that has not been clearly claimed yet. The claim will be examined as the claim includes the connection/protrusions are in a “land” structure. Examiner recommends adding the “land” structure to claims to more clearly claim the structure as further elements are currently claimed as additions to a hollow section but not given reference to a solid structure.
Claim 6 is rejected as it further limits the openings but still has not defined them with any structure (see rejection above regarding this). Similarly the claim will be examined as the structure being defined by a “land” structure.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
Note that claim 7 appears to correct the issue as it includes the “land” and is merely rejected due to dependence.
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.
.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (WO 2019/230911; U.S. PGPub 2021/0168969 used as reference).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a body sheet (fig. 57) for a vapor chamber (element 101) in which a working fluid is enclosed (abstract), the body sheet comprising: a first body surface (surface of element 110); a second body surface (surface of element 120) disposed opposite to the first body surface (fig. 57); a penetration space (space between 110 and 120) extending from the first body surface to the second body surface (per fig. 57); wherein the penetration space extends in the first direction in plan view (per fig. 57), and wherein, as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the penetration space includes a first opening (104 section against 110) positioned on the first body surface and a second opening (104 section against 120) positioned on the second body surface, the second opening extending from a region overlapping with.
Takahashi does not teach a plurality of first grooves provided on the first body surface and communicating with the penetration space, he plurality of first grooves extending in a first direction, the first opening in plan view to a position overlapping with the first grooves in plan view (per fig. 57).
Moon teaches a plurality of first grooves (elements 120) provided on the entire body inner surface (per figures) and communicating with the penetration space (per fig. 2) the grooves extending in a first direction (per fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art a the time of filing to modify Takahashi to include the grooves of Moon as claimed on the first body surface and the first opening in plan view to a position overlapping with the first grooves in plan view (as they are one both sides and, in all areas), the motivoant would be to improved heat transfer performance (para. 0026).
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.
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2019/230911; U.S. PGPub 2021/0168969 used as reference), in view of Moon (U.S. PGPub 2012/0145357).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a body sheet (fig. 57) for a vapor chamber (element 101) in which a working fluid is enclosed (abstract), the body sheet comprising: a first body surface (surface of element 110); a second body surface (surface of element 120) disposed opposite to the first body surface (fig. 57); a penetration space (space between 110 and 120) extending from the first body surface to the second body surface (per fig. 57); wherein the penetration space extends in the first direction in plan view (per fig. 57), and wherein, as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the penetration space includes a first opening (104 section against 110) positioned on the first body surface and a second opening (104 section against 120) positioned on the second body surface, the second opening extending from a region overlapping with.
Takahashi does not teach a plurality of first grooves provided on the first body surface and communicating with the penetration space, he plurality of first grooves extending in a first direction, the first opening in plan view to a position overlapping with the first grooves in plan view (per fig. 57).
Moon teaches a plurality of first grooves (elements 120) provided on the entire body inner surface (per figures) and communicating with the penetration space (per fig. 2) the grooves extending in a first direction (per fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Takahashi to include the grooves of Moon as claimed on the first body surface and the first opening in plan view to a position overlapping with the first grooves in plan view (as they are one both sides and, in all areas), the motivation would be to improved heat transfer performance (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the penetration space includes a first space depressed portion (created by element 137 on one side) disposed on the first body surface and defining the first opening and a second space depressed portion (created by the other side 137) disposed on the second body surface and defining the second opening (per fig. 57), the second space depressed portion communicating with the first space depressed portion (per fig. 57), wherein the first space depressed portion includes a pair of first wall surfaces curved in a concave shape (per fig. 57), wherein the second space depressed portion includes a pair of second wall surfaces curved in a concave shape (per fig. 57), wherein the first wall surface and the second wall surface corresponding to each other are connected by a wall-surface protrusion (elements 137) protruding toward inside of the penetration space (per fig. 57).
The Fig. 57 embodiment does not specifically teach as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the second space depressed portion includes a flat surface having a flat shape connecting the second wall surface and the wall-surface protrusion corresponding to each other. Other embodiments of Takahashi teach the use of flat surfaces in these areas (341b,441b), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the embodiment of Takahashi to include such structure, the motivation would be to the application of capillary force (para. 0500).
Regarding claim 6, Moon in combination with Takahashi would further result in as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the second opening extends from a region overlapping with the first opening in plan view to positions overlapping with the first grooves in plan view on both sides of the first opening as the grooves taught by moon are on fully covering the surface thus overlapping with the claimed structure as claimed when combined, , the motivation would be to improved heat transfer performance (para. 0026).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2019/230911; U.S. PGPub 2021/0168969 used as reference), in view of Moon (U.S. PGPub 2012/0145357), in further view of Kurashima et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0164043).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches a frame (elements 134) having a frame shape in plan view (per fig. 48) and extending from the first body surface to the second body surface (per fig. 57), the frame defining the penetration space (per fig. 57); and a land (solid structure of element 138) disposed inside the frame, the land extending in the first direction and extending from the first body surface to the second body surface (per fig. 57), wherein the first opening and the second opening are positioned between the frame and the land (per fig. 57), wherein the first grooves are positioned on the first body surface of the land (per fig. 57), and wherein, as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the first direction, the second opening extends from a region overlapping with the first opening in plan view to a position overlapping with the first grooves positioned in the land in plan view (per fig. 57).
Takahashi does not teach the second opening extending more toward outside of the frame than the first opening. Kurashima teaches the second opening (element 122) extending more toward outside of the frame than the first opening (element 121). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the embodiment of Takahashi to include the opening width teachings of Kurashima, the motivation would be to improving the vaporization efficiency (para. 0086).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is potentially allowable as no prior art is applicable to it, final determination will be based upon resolution of the 112 rejections applicable and resolution of any objection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter: It is neither taught or nor would it be obvious to have the grooves as claimed in claim 7 (part of the land element) to overlap with the openings as claimed. Specifically, as claimed in claim 7 the grooves would not read on the grooves of moon as modified by claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are responded to below.
With regard to applicants argument on the 112(b) of “a plurality of first grooves provided on the first body surface and communicating with the penetration space” is unpersuasive as applicant merely argues the interpretation is improperly broad. This does not present evidence or support that the language is not indefinite, thus the rejection is maintained. As for applicants arguemtn that the interpretation is improperly broad, this is found to mere argument as applicant does not argue for a different interpretation or state how such should be interpreted, thus this is pure argument. An interpretation of indefinite claim language is interpreted as best possible by examiner in order to promote compact prosecution as was properly done here.
With regards to applicants arguemtn of the 112(b) of first opening and second opening of claim 1 is not found persuasive. The claim as written make it unclear what the claimed opening are. It is unclear if they are merely zones/sections of the penetrating space or how they are defined.
With regards to applicants argument of the 112(b) in paragraphs 10-14 these are also not found persuasive. The claim language fails to provide a clear definition of the structure. Applicant points to figure 8A and structure there. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., shapes built into the land structure which is NOT included in the claim language) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner maintains that this claim langue is indefinite as the only structures in the claims being argued is the first body sheet, second body sheet, , the penetration space, and the grooves. With no languages including the specification “land” structure applicant is creating shapes in the penetrating space only and thus unclear what is being claimed. The land is not read into the claim as it is NOT claimed regardless of the specification. It is noted that claim 7 includes the land element and effectively removes the issue.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moon (U.S. PGPub 2012/0145357).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights