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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. US 9,696,096 B2.
Re claim 5, Uchida et al. teach a component for reducing a heat transfer temperature difference of a loop heat pipe, comprising an evaporator (10) and a reservoir (25), wherein the evaporator includes a housing (housing of 10, fig 6a) and a capillary structure (15a, b), wherein a first vapor chamber (annotated fig) that communicates with a vapor line (13) and a second vapor chamber (annotated fig) that communicates with an auxiliary line (18) are formed between the capillary structure and the housing, wherein the auxiliary line is configured to communicate with a liquid line (14, 12),
wherein a vaporized working medium in the second vapor chamber flows to the auxiliary line , and finally passes through the liquid line and flows back to the reservoir (noting a working medium is able to flow in this path via multiple passes in the loop heat pipe), wherein
the second vapor chamber is provided between the first vapor chamber and the reservoir , and the capillary structure is configured to separate the first vapor chamber from the second vapor chamber and to separate the second vapor chamber from the reservoir (fig 6a),
wherein the capillary structure can be permeated with a liquid-phase working medium and can prevent the vaporized working medium from circulating between the first vapor chamber and the second vapor chamber (noting a structure in between two chambers will naturally prevent flow to a extent even if just a portion is prevented ), and between the second vapor chamber and the reservoir (noting in the longer loop path the structure is capable of performing the functional limitations).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitations “wherein a vaporized working medium in the second vapor chamber flows to the auxiliary line , and finally passes through the liquid line and flows back to the reservoir”, and “wherein the capillary structure can be permeated with a liquid-phase working medium and can prevent the vaporized working medium from circulating between the first vapor chamber and the second vapor chamber , and between the second vapor chamber and the reservoir” have been considered recitations of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 7, Uchida et al. teach wherein the capillary structure is a separable structure, and the capillary structure includes a capillary wick (15a) and a capillary component (15b), wherein the first vapor chamber is formed between the capillary wick and the housing, the second vapor chamber is formed between the capillary component and the housing, and the capillary wick is in contact with or connected to the capillary component (fig 6a).
Re claim 8, Uchida et al. teach wherein the capillary structure is provided with a concave structure at a communication position between the evaporator and the auxiliary line, and the second vapor chamber is formed between the concave structure and the housing (fig 6a).
Re claim 13, Uchida et al. teach comprising the component for reducing the heat transfer temperature difference of the loop heat pipe according to claim 5 (col 3 lines 9-10).
Re claim 14, Uchida et al. teach further comprising the vapor line, a condenser, the liquid line and the auxiliary line, wherein the vapor line connects the first vapor chamber with an inlet of the condenser, the liquid line connects the reservoir with an outlet of the condenser, and the second vapor chamber and the liquid line communicate with each other by the auxiliary line (col 4 lines 44-57 describing a loop heat pipe and the other structure included, also col 6).
Re claim 15, Uchida et al. teach wherein a working medium channel (col 6 line 63) that communicates with the liquid line is provided inside the condenser, and the second vapor chamber and the working medium channel communicate with each other by the auxiliary line.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Machida US 11892239 B2.
Re claim 12, Uchida et al. fail to explicitly teach a porous structure.
Machida teach wherein a porous structure (312 noting secondary reference teach a secondary porous structure in a vapor space before working medium travel to main porous structure 411 of evaporator in second vapor space, figs 3, 7,9) is provided in the second vapor chamber to provide multiple porous structures in a loop heat pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a porous structure as taught by Machida in the Uchida et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for enhanced heat removal in a CPU.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Uchida fail to teach newly amended claim scope to claim 5. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., single path) 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).
Applicant’s arguments regarding in specific fluid flow (page 7 last two para, page 8, page 9, page 10 first para) are not found to be persuasive since every argument is directed to how a fluid may act during operation. All of these arguments are related to recitations which are recitations of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07. In the apparatus claim 5, all the structural limitations are met, and it is additionally noted that the structure is capable of meeting the functional limitations (see rejection of claim 5 above).
The applicant argues that Uchida 18 is not an auxiliary line. The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret 18 to be an auxiliary line given the broad requirement of “auxiliary line” relative to the other structure in the claim and no additional structural requirements of being an “auxiliary line”.
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., “first flows”) 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 applicant argues that Uchida does not permit 18 to be connected to 14. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 18 is fluidically connected to 14 and physically connected via intermediate structure.
The applicant argues that Uchida 18 is not an auxiliary line as in claim 5 (in a second instance , page 11 first para). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has failed to point out structural differences that are claimed in claim 5 that 18 fail to meet in this argument section.
The applicant appears to argue that Uchida fail to teach that the capillary structure or Uchida in claim 7 are not contacting or connecting (page 11, 12). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘connect’ is to join or fasten together usually by something intervening, and 15a and 15b are clearly connected given the plain meaning of connect even though they may not be directly contacting.
The applicant appears to argue that 19 Uchida fail to teach claim 12 requirement (arguments page 12 stating 19 is different structurally from instant application). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim 5 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights