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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments in Pages 9-11 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that WONG teaches wherein the first capillary structure (130) is rest against by all of the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127), and the first capillary structure (130) is a single structure (see Figures 1A-1D). WONG fail to teach wherein the first capillary structure (130) is located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions. However, combining the teaching of WONG with the teaching of HUANG would result to teach the above limitation since modifying WONG’s vapor chamber to include HUANG’s plurality of first protrusions (211a /212a) that are protruding from an inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111) would result to have the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) to be located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions (211a /212a of HUANG) because WONG’s first capillary structure (130 of WONG) is extending throughout of vapor chamber (i.e. from the left lateral wall to right lateral as shown in Figures 1B and 1C). Therefore, providing HUANG’s plurality of first protrusions (211a /212a) that would penetrate the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) would necessitate to have the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions (211a /212a of HUANG)).
In response to applicant's arguments in Pages 11 and 12 of the remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that HUANG is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, WONG and HUANG are in the field of the inventor's endeavor. Moreover, 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). In the instant case, Examiner notes that HUANG was relied upon as evidence that the supporting protrusions in vapor chambers are typically extending between and connecting the inner surfaces of the upper casing and the lower casing while being surrounded by a capillary and/or extending between the inner surfaces of the upper casing and the lower casing while resting a capillary structure. Additionally, Examiner notes that claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as 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:
connecting regions.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
the term “regions” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “connecting”), 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 disclosure defines connecting regions as empty spaces in which the first protrusions are connected to, see 129 in Figures 1D-1G. Therefore, the connecting regions as empty spaces in which the first protrusions are connected to, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG (US 20210180877 A1: Previously cited) in view of HUANG (US 20200064080 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, WONG teaches a vapor chamber device (see Figures 1A-1D and 2A-2C) adapted to be thermally coupled to a heat source (10: see Figure 1B), the vapor chamber device comprising:
a first casing (110) comprising a first plate portion (111), an inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111), and a first side wall (117) protruding from the inner surface (1112) , wherein the heat source (10) is adapted to contact an outer surface (1114) of the first plate portion (111);
a first capillary structure (130) disposed above the inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111) ; and
a second casing (120) stacked on the first casing (110), the second casing comprising a second plate portion (121), a plurality of second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127) protruding from the second plate portion (121), and a second side wall (128) protruding from the second plate portion (121) and surrounding the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127), wherein the first side wall (117) is connected to the second side wall (128), a plurality of steam passages (124) are formed between the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127), , and the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127) rest against the first capillary structure (130), wherein the first capillary structure (130) is rest against by all of the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127), and the first capillary structure (130) is a single structure (see Figures 1A-1D).
WONG does not teach a plurality of first protrusions protruding from an inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111), and a first side wall (117) protruding from the inner surface (1112) and surrounding the first protrusions, a first capillary structure (130) disposed above the inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111) and surrounding the first protrusions, the second plate portion (121) comprises a plurality of connecting regions formed at locations corresponding to the first protrusions where the second protrusions are absent, the first protrusions are connected to the connecting regions, wherein a number of the second protrusions is greater than a number of the first protrusions, and a size of the first protrusion is greater than a size of the second protrusion, wherein the first capillary structure (130) is located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions.
However, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the supporting protrusions in vapor chambers are typically extending between and connecting the inner surfaces of the upper casing and the lower casing while being surrounded by a capillary and/or extending between the inner surfaces of the upper casing and the lower casing while resting a capillary structure, as evidenced by HUANG, see HUANG’s Figures 6A and 7A where HUANG teaches a plurality of first protrusions (211a /212a) that are protruding from the inner surface of the upper plate and surrounded by a capillary structure (3: see Figures 6A and 7A) and a plurality of second protrusions (211/212) that rest against the capillary structure (3 :see Figures 6A and 7A), a plurality of connecting regions (connecting surfaces of 211a /212a) formed at locations corresponding to the first protrusions where the second protrusions are absent (see Figures 6A and 7A), the first protrusions (211a /212a) are connected to the connecting regions (see Figures 6A and 7A), wherein a number of the second protrusions (211/212) is greater than a number of the first protrusions (211a /212a), and a size of the first protrusion (211a /212a) is greater than a size of the second protrusion (211/212 :see Figures 6A and 7A where 211a /212a taller than 211/212). Furthermore, HUANG teaches that the plurality of protrusions (11b and 21b) can protrude from the upper casing or the lower casing (see Figure 8B).
Accordingly, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to provide protrusions that are protruding from the inner surface of the upper and/or lower casing while being surrounded by a capillary structure or resting against a capillary structure, as evidenced by HUANG, 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. independently supporting the casing without having a load on the capillary structure, 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 provide WONG, with a plurality of first protrusions protruding from an inner surface of the first plate portion, and a first side wall protruding from the inner surface and surrounding the first protrusions, a first capillary structure disposed above the inner surface of the first plate portion and surrounding the first protrusions, a plurality of connecting regions formed at locations corresponding to the first protrusions where the second protrusions are absent, the first protrusions are connected to the connecting regions, 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 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the numbers and the sizes of the first and second protrusions would result in a difference in function of the WONG in view of HUANG device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the numbers and the sizes of the first and second protrusions, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed relationship between the size and number of the first and second protrusions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed relationship between the size and number of the first and second protrusions solves any stated problem, indicating that “Of course, the relationship between the size and number of the first protrusion 117a and the second protrusion 122 is not limited thereto” (specification at para. [0051]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the relationship between the size and number of the first and second protrusions as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the numbers and the sizes of the first and second protrusions of WONG in view of HUANG device, to have a number of the second protrusions is greater than a number of the first protrusions, and a size of the first protrusion is greater than a size of the second protrusion as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
WONG in view of HUANG teaches wherein the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) is located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions ( Examiner notes that modifying WONG’s vapor chamber to include HUANG’s plurality of first protrusions (211a /212a) protruding from an inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111) would result to have the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) to be located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions (211a /212a of HUANG) because WONG’s first capillary structure (130 of WONG) is extending throughout of vapor chamber (i.e. from the left lateral wall to right lateral as shown in Figures 1B and 1C). Therefore, providing HUANG’s plurality of first protrusions (211a /212a) that would penetrate the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) would necessitate to have the first capillary structure (130 of WONG) located between any two adjacent ones of the first protrusions (211a /212a of HUANG)).
Regarding claim 3, WONG does not teach wherein a difference value between a height of the first protrusion protruding from the first plate portion and a height of the second protrusion protruding from the second plate portion is a height of the first capillary structure.
However, HUANG teaches in Figure 6A that a difference value between a height of the protrusion (211a) and a height of the other protrusion (211) is a height of the first capillary structure (3). Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the relationship between the height of the first and second protrusions and the height of the capillary layer would result in a difference in function of the WONG in view of HUANG device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the height of the first and second protrusions, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed relationship between the height of the first and second protrusions and the height of the capillary layer. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed relationship between the height of the first and second protrusions and the height of the capillary layer solves any stated problem, indicating that the height of the capillary layer can be the difference between a height of the first protrusion and a height of the second protrusion (see Figure 2) or it can be unrelated to the height of the first and second protrusions (see Figure 3A), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the relationship between the height of the first and second protrusions and the height of the first capillary structure as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the first and second protrusions and the height of the capillary layer of WONG in view of HUANG device, to have a difference value between a height of the first protrusion protruding from the first plate portion and a height of the second protrusion protruding from the second plate portion is a height of the first capillary structure as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, WONG as modified by HUANG teaches wherein each of the first protrusions (211, 21a, 11a, 21b, and/or 11b of HUANG) is columnar or strip-shaped (see HUANG’s Figures 4B and 6B), and the first protrusions are evenly distributed on the inner surface (see HUANG’s Figures 4B and 6B).
Regarding claim 5, WONG further teaches wherein the second protrusions (122, 122a, 123, 125, and/or 127) comprise a plurality of first support columns (122a: see Figure 2A) and a plurality of second support columns (123), a shape of the first support columns (122a) is different from a shape of the second support columns (123: see Figure 2A), the first support columns (122a) are disposed at positions corresponding to the heat source (10: see Figure 2A) , and the second support columns (123) are located next to the first support columns (122a) and extend in an axial direction (see Figure 2A and ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, WONG further teaches wherein a part (122a) of the second protrusions (122: see Figure 2B) is disposed at a position corresponding to the heat source (10), and a remaining part (123, 125, and 127) of the second protrusions (122) is arranged radially around the part (see ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, WONG further teaches wherein the first capillary structure (130) is a mesh structure woven by a plurality of wires, a non-woven mesh structure, a metal foam layer, or sintered metal powder (see ¶ [0041]), and the first capillary structure comprises a plurality holes (134: see Figures 1B, 1C, and ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, WONG further teaches wherein the first casing (110: see Figure 1B) comprises a second capillary structure (113) protruding integrally from the inner surface (1112) of the first plate portion (111: see Figure 1B), the second capillary structure (113) comprises a plurality of grooves (114) formed between a plurality of convex bars (112) to serve as fluid channels (see Figure 1B and ¶ [0046]), and the first capillary structure (130) is disposed between the second capillary structure (113) and the second protrusions (122) of the second casing (120: see Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 9, WONG further teaches wherein at least a part of the grooves (114) are radially arranged (see Figure 1B and ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, WONG as modified further teaches wherein the first protrusions (HUANG’s protrusions) of and at least a part of the convex bars (112 of WONG) are radially arranged together (WONG indicated in ¶¶ [0016 and 0053] that “a plurality of trenches, and at least some of the trenches are radially arranged” and “one portion (the first supporting posts 122 a) of these supporting posts is disposed corresponding to the heat source 10, and the other portion of the supporting posts (the second supporting posts 123, 125, and 127) is radially arranged around the first supporting posts 122 a as a center. Such a design may also well guide the flow direction of the working fluid g (vapor)” which necessitate HUANG’s protrusions to match the arrangement of the convex bars in order for vapor chamber to work as intended).
Regarding claim 11, WONG further teaches further comprising a third capillary structure (140: see Figure 1B) filled in the grooves (114) in regions corresponding to the heat source (10: see in Figure 1B and ¶ [0032] where 140 filled in 114 in regions corresponding to 10), and the third capillary structure (140) comprises metal powder, non-woven metal wool, or nanostructures (see Figure 1B and ¶¶ [0017 and 0045]).
Regarding claim 17, WONG further teaches wherein the first side wall (117) and the second side wall (128) have a sealing region at edges (region that connect 128 and 117), and the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding (see Figure 1B and ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, WONG further teaches wherein the first side wall (117) and the second side wall (128) have a sealing region at edges (region that connect 128 and 117), and the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding (see Figure 1B and ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, WONG further teaches wherein the first side wall (117) and the second side wall (128) have a sealing region at edges (region that connect 128 and 117), and the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding (see Figure 1B and ¶ [0037]).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG (US 20210180877 A1: Previously cited) in view of HUANG (US 20200064080 A1: Previously cited) as applied to claims 1, 8 or 11, and further in view of CHEN (US 20200355444 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, WONG in view of HUANG does not teach further comprising a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions.
However, it is an old and well-known technique for vapor chamber to have a capillary structure that is vertically extending on support structures from a horizontal capillary structure, as evidenced by CHEN, see CHEN’s Figure 1E where a plurality of extended capillary layers (201 that are vertically extending on support structures 154) extending from the capillary structure (201 that are between support structures 154) and integrated with the capillary structure (see Figure 1E), and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions (154: see Figure 1E and ¶¶ [0040 and 0054]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capillary structure of WONG to have a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions; that is: using the known technique of a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the capillary structure and integrated with the capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions, as taught by CHEN, to provide the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG with a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the working fluid circulation by increasing the covered area by the capillary structure thus improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG.
Regarding claim 13, WONG in view HUANG does not teach further comprising a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions.
However, it is an old and well-known technique for vapor chamber to have a capillary structure that is vertically extending on support structures from a horizontal capillary structure, as evidenced by CHEN, see CHEN’s Figure 1E where a plurality of extended capillary layers (201 that are vertically extending on support structures 154) extending from the capillary structure (201 that are between support structures 154) and integrated with the capillary structure (see Figure 1E), and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions (154: see Figure 1E and ¶¶ [0040 and 0054]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capillary structure of WONG to have a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions; that is: using the known technique of a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the capillary structure and integrated with the capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions, as taught by CHEN, to provide the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG with a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the working fluid circulation by increasing the covered area by the capillary structure thus improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG.
Regarding claim 14, WONG in view of HUANG does not teach further comprising a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions.
However, it is an old and well-known technique for vapor chamber to have a capillary structure that is vertically extending on support structures from a horizontal capillary structure, as evidenced by CHEN, see CHEN’s Figure 1E where a plurality of extended capillary layers (201 that are vertically extending on support structures 154) extending from the capillary structure (201 that are between support structures 154) and integrated with the capillary structure (see Figure 1E), and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions (154: see Figure 1E and ¶¶ [0040 and 0054]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capillary structure of WONG to have a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions; that is: using the known technique of a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the capillary structure and integrated with the capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround protrusions, as taught by CHEN, to provide the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG with a plurality of extended capillary layers extending from the first capillary structure and integrated with the first capillary structure, and the extended capillary layers surround the first protrusions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the working fluid circulation by increasing the covered area by the capillary structure thus improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG (US 20210180877 A1: Previously cited) in view of HUANG (US 20200064080 A1: Previously cited) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WANG (US 20110192576 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, WONG does not teach wherein one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped convex bar, the ring-shaped convex bar surrounds corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the other one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped groove surrounding corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the ring-shaped convex bar is embedded in the ring-shaped groove, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall have a sealing region at edges, the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding, and the sealing region surrounds or covers the ring-shaped convex bar and the ring-shaped groove.
However, it is an old and well-known technique for vapor chamber to be sealed via a ring-shaped bar and a ring-shaped groove, as evidenced by WANG, see WANG’s Figure 9 where the first side wall (11) of the vapor chamber comprises a ring-shaped bar (110) and the second side wall (21) comprises a ring-shaped groove (210) and the ring-shaped bar (110) is embedded in the ring-shaped groove (210), wherein the first side wall (11) and the second side wall (21) have a sealing region at edges (sealing region of 50, 110, and 210), the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by soldering (50), and the sealing region surrounds or covers the ring-shaped bar (110) and the ring-shaped groove (210: see in Figure 9 and cf. Figure 6 where sealing region of 50, 110, and 210 surrounds or covers 110 and 210).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the casing of WONG to have one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped convex bar, the ring-shaped convex bar surrounds corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the other one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped groove surrounding corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the ring-shaped convex bar is embedded in the ring-shaped groove, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall have a sealing region at edges, the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding, and the sealing region surrounds or covers the ring-shaped convex bar and the ring-shaped groove; that is: using the known technique of a first side wall of the vapor chamber comprises a ring-shaped bar and a second side wall comprises a ring-shaped groove and the ring-shaped bar is embedded in the ring-shaped groove, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall have a sealing region at edges, the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by soldering, and the sealing region surrounds or covers the ring-shaped bar and the ring-shaped groove, as taught by WANG, to provide the vapor chamber of WONG in view of HUANG with one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped convex bar, the ring-shaped convex bar surrounds corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the other one of the first side wall and the second side wall comprises a ring-shaped groove surrounding corresponding first protrusions or second protrusions, and the ring-shaped convex bar is embedded in the ring-shaped groove, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall have a sealing region at edges, the sealing region seals the edges of the first side wall and the second side wall by pinching, diffusion bonding, brazing, soldering, laser welding, or arc welding, and the sealing region surrounds or covers the ring-shaped convex bar and the ring-shaped groove would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): such would provide the predictable benefit of enhancing the sealing method of WONG in view of HUANG vapor chamber thus preventing leaks.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WONG (US 20210180877 A1: Previously cited) in view of HUANG (US 20200064080 A1: Previously cited) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of GARNER (US 20040211549 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, WONG does not teach wherein a material of the first casing and the second casing comprises aluminum or aluminum alloy.
GARNER teaches a material of the first casing (top wall: see Figure 2) and the second casing (bottom wall) comprises aluminum or aluminum alloy (see Figure 2 and ¶ [0020]).
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 first casing and the second casing of WONG with aluminum or aluminum alloy since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having a casing that is made with low cost thermally conductive material.
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
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763