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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending. Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-14 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “a second wall thickness of the unitary wall larger than the first wall thickness” appears to be a typographical error of “a second wall thickness of the unitary wall is larger than the first wall thickness”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 2018/0172360A1) in view of Kawabata K et al. (JP 2011047593A). Miura discloses (figure 1) a heat pipe comprising a unitary tubular structure (15) having a unitary pipe wall, the unitary tubular structure comprising a first portion (heat dissipation part 11B) extending a first length having first wall thickness (t2, figure 4) of the unitary pipe wall, a first diameter/ a first width (width of the first flat pipe portion 11B ), a second portion (heat receiving part 11A) extending a second length having a second diameter/ a second width (width of the second flat portion 11A) and a second wall thickness (t1, figure 3) of the unitary pipe wall, the first portion is a first flatted portion having a first height (h2) smaller than the first width (see figure 4); the second portion (h1) is a second flattened portion having a second height smaller than the second width (see figure 3), the first width being perpendicular to the first height and the second width being perpendicular to the second height. Miura further discloses (paragraph 43) that the second wall thickness (T1) of the unitary pipe wall is larger than the first wall thickness (T2). Regarding claims 1 and 7, Miura does not disclose that the second portion (evaporator portion 11A) have a larger diameter/ width than the first portion and form a flattened pad having larger lateral area than the first portion.
Kawabata discloses (figures 1 and 2) a heat pipe (1) that has a flat second portion (heat receiving part 4, 24) have larger diameter/width and form a flatted pad having larger lateral area than the first portion (dissipating portion attached to fin 3 or 23) for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer contact area with the heat source (7,11,12) to improve the heat transfer rate from the heat source to the heat pipe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kawabata’s teaching in Miura’s device for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer contact area of the heat pipe with the heat source to improve the heat transfer rate from the heat source to the heat pipe. Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination device of Miura and Kawabata discloses that the second portion has a greater thermal mass than the first portion (greater thickness, hence, it has a greater thermal mass). Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, the limitations of “is configured to be disposed on a heat source without a cold plate” (claims 3 and 13) and “ the heat source is an integrated circuit’ (claim 4) are intended uses of the heat pipe, the claimed heat pipe does not differentiate the claimed heat pipe from combination heat pipe of Miura in view of Kawabata satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d1647. In this case, the heat pipe of Miura has a flatten outer wall on the second section (1A, figure 1 and 3), which is capable of or configured to be disposed on any heat source including an integrated circuit. Regarding claim 5, the combination device of Miura in view of Kawabata discloses the flattened pad (4, 24) includes the larger lateral area in response to the heat pipe being flattened. (the heat pipe being flattened at the heat receiving ends 4 or 24). Furthermore, the method of forming the device (in response to the heat pipe being flattened) is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 6, Miura further discloses (paragraph 32) that the heat pipe is formed of copper.
Regarding claim 9, Miura further discloses that the first width is perpendicular to the first height and the second width if perpendicular to the second height.
Regarding claim 10, Miura further discloses that the first length is perpendicular to the first width and the first height, and the second length is perpendicular to the second width and the second height.
Regarding claim 11, Miura further discloses that the first width is perpendicular to the first length and the second width is perpendicular to the second length.
Regarding claim 14, the combination device of Miura in view of Kawabata further discloses the first portion has a first lateral area defined by the first length, and the first width, and the second portion has a second lateral area defined by the second length and the second width, the second lateral area being larger than the first lateral area.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura and Kawabata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 2005/0225943A1). Miura and Kawabat substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation of a fan configured to generate an airflow to cool the first portion of the heat pipe, wherein the heat pipe is configured to transfer heat generated by the heat source from the second portion to the first portion. Shih discloses (figure 5 and paragraph 35) a system comprising a heat pipe and a fan (506) configured to generate an airflow to cool the first portion of the heat pipe, wherein the heat pipe is configured to transfer heat generated by the heat source from the second portion to the first portion for a purpose of increasing the heat dissipation efficiency of the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Shih’s teaching in the combination device of Miura in view of Kawabata for a purpose of increasing the heat dissipation efficiency of the system
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 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.
/THO V DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights