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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “a molding-mark recess” (claims 1 and 19) is considered to be new matter. The originally filed specification, claims, and drawings have support for a recess, but do not teach the a molding-mark recess. As such, the limitations are deemed to be new matter.
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) 1-4 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tien et al. US 2007/0242437 Al in view of Degner US 8976528 B2.
Re claim 1, Tien et al. teach a heat dissipation structure, comprising: an accommodation portion comprising a cover part (annotated fig) and two sidewall parts (annotated fig),
and the cover part located between and connected to the two sidewall parts;
and two mount portions (annotated fig), wherein the cover part is located between and connected to the two mount portions via the two sidewall parts, and each of the two sidewall parts has a solid body located between opposite ends of the cover part (fig 2, noting the two sidewall parts are disposed in between two longitudinal ends of the cover part),
wherein each of the two mount portions has a mount surface (inner surfaces) configured to face toward or contact a PCB (para 26, lines 7-8; noting surfaces face down towards), each of the two sidewall parts has a sidewall surface configured to face toward or contact a heat pipe (nothing inner surfaces naturally face towards the heat pipe in which is contacted by the surfaces),
a molding-mark recess (annotated fig) is formed at a junction (junction where two legs meet main base which has two sidewall parts) between one of the two mount portions and one of the two sidewall parts on a side opposite to the mount surface of the one of the two mount portions and the sidewall surface of the one of the two sidewall parts (figs).
Tien et al. teach a circuit board but fail to explicitly teach a PCB .
Degner teach a PCB (208) to stack a heat generating CPU 202 on a PCB.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a PCB as taught by Degner in the Tien et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for laptop construction.
PNG
media_image1.png
861
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Tien et al. teach wherein the cover part has a solid body located between the opposite ends of the cover part (fig 2).
Re claim 3, Tien et al. teach wherein a section of each of the two sidewall parts located between the opposite ends of the cover part is absent of any holes
Re claim 4, Tien et al. teach wherein the cover part is absent of any holes
Re claim 19, Tien et al. teach a heat dissipation assembly, comprising: a heat dissipation structure comprising: an accommodation portion comprising a cover part (annotated fig) and two sidewall parts (annotated fig),
and the cover part located between and connected to the two sidewall parts;
and two mount portions (annotated fig), wherein the cover part is located between and connected to the two mount portions via the two sidewall parts, and a section of each of the two sidewall parts located between opposite ends of the cover part is absent of any holes, and the cover part is absent of any holes (fig 2); a heat pipe (2) partially disposed in the accommodation portion of the heat dissipation structure and in thermal contact with the cover part and the two sidewall parts; and a heat sink (1) in thermal contact with the heat pipe (also see the rejection of claim 1),
wherein each of the two mount portions has a mount surface (inner surfaces) configured to face toward or contact a PCB (para 26, lines 7-8; noting surfaces face down towards), each of the two sidewall parts has a sidewall surface configured to face toward or contact the heat pipe (nothing inner surfaces naturally face towards the heat pipe in which is contacted by the surfaces),
a molding-mark recess (annotated fig, see the rejection of claim 1) is formed at a junction between one of the two mount portions and one of the two sidewall parts on a side opposite to the mount surface of the one of the two mount portions and the sidewall surface of the one of the two sidewall parts (figs).
Tien et al. teach a circuit board but fail to explicitly teach a PCB .
Degner teach a PCB (208) to stack a heat generating CPU 202 on a PCB.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a PCB as taught by Degner in the Tien et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for laptop construction.
Re claim 20, Tien et al. teach wherein the accommodation portion and the heat sink are located on opposite ends of the heat pipe, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The scope of the independent claims has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on a new rejection of record to teach the newly recited scope (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
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