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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15- 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on Group I/Species A.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I/Species A in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the correct species are not disclosed. Therefore, the species requirement is withdrawn; however, the Invention/Group election requirement remains (Group I).
The remaining requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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(s) 1-6, 8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 2021/0400846 Al in view of NIKKHOO US 20230309265.
Re claim 1, Lewis et al. teach
a heat radiating member comprising:
a first plate (3305) extending in a first direction and including: a first non-folding area (left fig 33a); a second non-folding area (right fig 33a); and a folding area (3360) disposed between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area and including a plurality of first openings (concave portions in between 3360 ridges);
a second plate (3310) extending in the first direction, spaced apart from the first plate in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and including a plurality of second openings (concave portions in between 3360 ridges) in the folding area;
and a plurality of pillars (3330, para 202) disposed between the first plate and the second plate in the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area and connecting the first plate and the second plate.
Lewis et al. fail to explicitly teach different distances.
NIKKHOO teach wherein a first separation distance between two adjacent ones of the plurality of first openings and a second separation distance between two adjacent ones of the plurality of second openings are different in the first direction (noting opposite bendable bellows, 204, fig 2a, and bellows naturally , when bent, will shrink the concave gaps, spaces ie openings on one side and lengthen the concave gaps, spaces ie openings on the other side as is well known in the art) to minimize the collapse of hollow connector .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include different distances as taught by NIKKHOO in the Lewis et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for reduced impedance of heat pipe flow.
Re claim 2, Lewis et al. teach
further comprising: a wick (3320) structure disposed between the first plate and the second plate, extending in the first direction, and including a plurality of third openings (fig 33a, noting mesh naturally has openings within the structure distributed throughout) in the folding area.
Re claim 3, NIKKHOO teach wherein a third separation distance between two adjacent ones of the plurality of third openings is greater than the second separation distance and less than the first separation distance in the first direction (see the rejection of claim 1, noting that naturally, as a bellow bend a gradient of distances will begin to from the center, all slightly increasing and decreasing relative to direction).
Re claim 4, Lewis et al. teach wherein the first plate and the second plate are folded with respect to a folding axis, and a distance between the folding axis and the first plate is greater than a distance between the folding axis and the second plate (noting “a distance” is broad and arbitrary points due to the broad nature of the claim will have longer or shorter distances from the central folding region).
Re claim 5, Lewis et al. teach wherein the first separation distance is greater than the second separation distance (see the rejection of claim 4).
Re claim 6, another Lewis et al. embodiment teach a first film attached to an upper surface and a lower surface of a portion of the first plate in the folding area; a second film attached to an upper surface and a lower surface of a portion of the second plate in the folding area(noting the internal surfaces meet the limitations of upper and lower depending on orientation of the overall apparatus, para 179-181, noting the inside of the first and second plate is coated with the film in the instant combination) and a third film attached to an upper surface and a lower surface of a portion of the wick structure in the folding area (para 181) to provide a ceramic film on the internal casing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include combine embodiments in the Lewis et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for casing bonding.
Re claim 7, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first film and the second film include thermoplastic polyurethane for ideal heat transfer or manufacturability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 8, Lewis et al. teach wherein a portion of the wick structure in the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area includes a mesh structure (para 203).
Re claim 10, Lewis et al. teach
a heat radiating member comprising: a first plate extending in a first direction and including: a first non-folding area; a second non-folding area; and a folding area disposed between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area and including a plurality of first openings; a second plate extending in the first direction, spaced apart from the first plate in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and including a plurality of second openings in the folding area; and a plurality of pillars disposed between the first plate and the second plate in the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area and connecting the first plate and the second plate (see the rejection of claim 1).
Lewis et al. fail to explicitly teach different distances.
NIKKHOO teach wherein a width of each of the plurality of second openings is different from a width of each of the plurality of first openings in the first direction (noting opposite bendable bellows, 204, fig 2a, and bellows naturally , when bent, will shrink the concave gaps, spaces ie openings on one side and lengthen the concave gaps, spaces ie openings on the other side as is well known in the art) to minimize the collapse of hollow connector .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include different distances as taught by NIKKHOO in the Lewis et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for reduced impedance of heat pipe flow.
Re claim 11, Lewis et al. teach further comprising: a wick structure disposed between the first plate and the second plate, extending in the first direction, and including a plurality of third openings in the folding area (see the rejection of claim 2).
Re claim 12, Lewis et al. teach wherein a width of each of the plurality of third openings is greater than the width of each of the plurality of second openings and less than the width of each of the plurality of first openings in the first direction (see the rejection of claim 3).
Re claim 13, Lewis et al. teach wherein the first plate and the second plate are folded with respect to a folding axis, and a distance between the folding axis and the first plate is greater than a distance between the folding axis and the second plate (see the rejection of claim 4).
Re claim 14, Lewis et al. teach wherein the width of each of the plurality of first openings is greater than the width of each of the plurality of second openings (see the rejection of claim 1, noting that naturally, as a bellow bend a gradient of distances will begin to from the center, all slightly increasing and decreasing relative to direction).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 2021/0400846 Al in view of NIKKHOO US 20230309265 and Delano US 20180157297 A1.
Re claim 7, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first film and the second film include thermoplastic polyurethan for making a backing layer (para 31), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 2021/0400846 Al in view of NIKKHOO US 20230309265 and SUN US 20250133696 A1 .
Re claim 9, Lewis et al. fail to explicitly teach different distances.
SUN teach , wherein the plurality of pillars (5) penetrate the wick structure (figs) to support the chamber to minimize the collapse of hollow connector .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include different distances as taught by SUN in the Lewis et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for structural stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230309265 A1.
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