Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/342,699

Chamber Sealing Process for Temperature Equalizing Plate and Temperature Equalizing Plate Manufactured by Same

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 27, 2023
Examiner
HOLLY, LEE A
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Raytech Precision Technologies (Shuyang) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
434 granted / 578 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
609
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.1%
+4.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 578 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kojima et al. (WO 2022/059517 A1) as provided by Kojima et al. (US 2023/0217631 A1) as an English language equivalent used hereinafter for recitations in view of Nishikawa (JPH 11123574) as provided by (JPH 11123574) Machine translation as an English language equivalent. Claim 1: Kojima discloses a chamber sealing process for a temperature equalizing plate (abstract), the chamber sealing process includes: providing a bottom cover (12) with a sunken groove (13), a cover plate (11) and a capillary structure (30) (fig. 1, [0029]); the bottom cover (12) includes a connection edge (edge portion at sealing portion (50)) extending outwardly from an edge of the sunken groove (13) (fig. 1, [0030]); the cover plate (11) attached to one side of the connection edge (fig. 1, [0030] and [[0117]); forming an inner cavity (formed by 11 and 12) by enclosing the cover plate (11) and the bottom cover (12) (fig. 1, [0029]); placing the capillary structure (30) between the cover plate (11) and the bottom cover (12), and then installing the cover plate (11) in the sunken groove (fig. 1, [0029]); and performing laser welding on a contact area between the cover plate (11) and the bottom cover (12) to seal the inner cavity (formed by 11 and 12) for obtaining a temperature equalizing plate with a sealed chamber (fig. 1, [0117]); and irradiating laser on the contact area between the cover plate (11) and the connection edge of the bottom cover (12) (laser welding) (fig. 1, [0030] and [[0117]); and sealing the inner cavity with a weld seam formed on the contact area (fig. 1, [0030] and [[0117]). Kojima fails to disclose utilizing tooling with a light through channel to press the connection edge of the cover plate and the bottom cover; and, irradiating laser on the contact area between the cover plate and the connection edge of the bottom cover along the light through channel of the tooling. Nishikawa discloses a method of laser welding workpieces with a laser torch body provided with a work holder (abstract), comprising providing a bottom cover (2) including a connection edge extending outwardly from a vertical edge and a cover plate (3) is attached to one side of the connection edge (fig. 5, [0003] and [0012]); performing laser welding on the contact area between the cover plate (3) and the bottom cover (2) to seal workpiece (fig. 5, [0003] and [0012]); and, utilizing tooling (5) with a light through channel (14) to press the connection edge of the cover plate (3) and the bottom cover (2) (fig. 5, [0003] and [0012]); irradiating laser (1) on the contact area between the cover plate (3) and the connection edge of the bottom cover (2) along the light through channel (F, in the center of 14) of the tooling (5), and forming a weld seam on the contact area (fig. 5, [0003] and [0012]); wherein the light through channel (F, in the center of 14) is provided between an inner edge of the tooling (5) and an outer edge of the tooling (5) (figs. 3-6, [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the chamber sealing process of Kojima by utilizing tooling with a light through channel to press the connection edge of the cover plate and the bottom cover as taught by Nishikawa in order to provide high welding quality without using an exclusive jig having a complicated structure (Nishikawa , abstract). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Kojima in view Nishikawa renders obvious a chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1; and Kojima in view of Nishikawa fails to disclose a predetermined distance which ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm is set between the inner edge of the tooling and the side wall of the sunken groove. Instead, Kojima in view of Nishikawa is silent on the distance between the inner edge of the tooling and the side wall of the sunken groove. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Kojima in view of Nishikawa to provide a predetermined distance which ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm is set between the inner edge of the tooling and the side wall of the sunken groove, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 1. Claim 5: Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious the chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1, further including a step of performing tempering process on the temperature equalizing plate (Kojima, [0108] and [0123]). Claim 7: Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious the chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1, wherein the molding method of the capillary structure (Kojima, 30) includes a mesh structure (Kojima, fig. 1, [0092]). Claim 8: Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious the chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1, wherein the sunken groove of the bottom cover (Kojima, 12) is formed by etching or stamping (Kojima, fig. 1, [0031]); a protruded point (Kojima, 60) is provided on the side of the cover plate (Kojima, 11) close to the bottom cover (Kojima, 12), and the protruded point is formed by etching or stamping (Kojima, fig. 1, [0031]). Claim 9: Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious the chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1, wherein the bottom cover (Kojima, 12) is made of any one of copper and titanium alloys (Kojima, fig. 1, [0085]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US 2022/0128314 A1). Claim 6: Kojima in view of Nishikawa renders obvious the chamber sealing process of the temperature equalizing plate as described in claim 1, further including a step of: obtaining a cavity body by pumping the sealed chamber through an injection port reserved by the temperature equalizing plate; injecting a working medium into the true cavity through an injection port reserved by the temperature equalizing plate (Kojima, fig. 1, [0119]). Kojima in view of Nishikawa fails to disclose sealing the injection port. Inagaki discloses a chamber sealing process including obtaining a cavity body (13) by pumping the sealed chamber through an injection port (liquid injection port) reserved by the temperature equalizing plate; injecting a working medium (working fluid) into the true cavity (13) through an injection port reserved by the temperature equalizing plate and sealing the injection port (figs. 1-3, page 5 [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to seal the injection port of Kojima in view of Nishikawa as taught by Inagaki in order to retain the working fluid in the cavity. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 15 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Examiner previously stated claim 4 contained allowable subject matter and applicant amended independent claim 1 to include the subject matter of claim 4. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational which instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 2011/0277955 A1) discloses a method of making a vapor chamber. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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. /Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594634
END EFFECTOR AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589454
WELDING FINISHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583066
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMOVING METAL FASTENERS EMBEDDED IN WOOD PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576450
Workpiece Holder And Machining Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569948
METHOD FOR USING HEAT DISSIPATION PLATE MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 578 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month