DETAILED ACTION
This application is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A/Subspecies AA in the reply filed on 9/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-20 are generic, which appears to be persuasive. Claims 1-20 are examined below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “one first interface”, wherein it is unclear what “one first interface” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “one first interface” have with the “a first interface”, since the term “one first interface” has not differentiated how the “one first interface” are distinct from the recited “a first interface” (claim 5) from which the claim depends. Is the term “one first interface” requiring that the a first interface on be in the singular? Are additional first interfaces being claimed? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as – the a first interface is one first interface-- for clarity.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “one first interface”, wherein it is unclear what “one first interface” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “one first interface” have with the “a first interface”, since the term “one first interface” has not differentiated how the “one first interface” are distinct from the recited “a first interface” (claim 16) from which the claim depends. Is the term “one first interface” requiring that the a first interface on be in the singular? Are additional first interfaces being claimed? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as – the a first interface is one first interface-- for clarity.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. US 2012/0268877 Al in view of Kim US 20140131011 A1.
Re claim 1, Rice et al. teach a heat dissipation apparatus; comprising: an evaporator (170, 190) and a plurality of ribbed plates (192 with ribs 172) connected to the evaporator, wherein the evaporator has a first cavity, and the first cavity is configured to accommodate a working medium for vapor-liquid two-phase conversion (fig 14-16);
and at least one of the ribbed plates comprises,
at least one of the ribbed plates comprises, a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts, a side that is of the second side plate and that faces the first side plate has a plurality of second protruding parts (fig 16), and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to a corresponding one of the second protruding parts (all parts attached by sidewalls)
a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts, a side that is of the second side plate and that faces the first side plate has a plurality of second protruding parts (opposing 172, fig 16),
and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to a corresponding one of the second protruding parts, so that a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels that are connected to the first cavity (noting central cavity and secondary cavities in between recesses defined by 172).
Rice et al. fail to explicitly teach a first side plate and a second side plate.
Kim teach a first side plate and a second side plate (para 6, figs) to create a secondary flow path with two separate fins for a fluid to flow.
When combined, the instant combination teach a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts, a side that is of the second side plate and that faces the first side plate has a plurality of second protruding parts, and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to one a corresponding one of the second protruding parts, so that a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels that are connected to the first cavity (noting the secondary reference has two plates with “a plurality of first protruding parts” 9, 11 which mate with opposing plates, figs 6a-c to form 702 which meets the limitations of “and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to a corresponding one of the second protruding parts, so that a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels that are connected to the first cavity” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first side plate and a second side plate as taught by Kim in the Rice et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for additional components to be placed into the secondary chamber.
Re claim 2, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the at least one of the ribbed plates is a rolled and blown structure; or the at least one of the ribbed plates is a stamped and brazed structure.
The recitation of “wherein the at least one of the ribbed plates is a rolled and blown structure; or the at least one of the ribbed plates is a stamped and brazed structure” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 3, Kim teach wherein the evaporator comprises a third side plate and a fourth side plate (128, 130), edges of the third side plate and the fourth side plate are sealed and bonded, and the first cavity is formed between the first side plate and the second side plate, wherein the third side plate is configured to be in contact with heat sources (134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include plate details as taught by Kim in the Rice et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for additional components to be placed into the secondary chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include heat sources to advantageously allow for more than one heat source cooling since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B.
Re claim 4, Kim teach wherein a first interface (37) is provided on the evaporator, the first interface is connected to the first cavity, a second interface (37 on other side fig 15ba) is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, and the second interface is connected to at least one of the channels; and the first interface is connected to the second interface (figs, all items connected in unitary construction) to create a secondary flow path with two separate fins for a fluid to flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first side plate and a second side plate as taught by Kim in the Rice et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for additional components to be placed into the secondary chamber.
Re claim 5, Rice et al. teach wherein the evaporator has one first interface (in the instant combination see claim 4), a plurality of second interfaces (180) is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, and the one first interface is connected to the plurality of second interfaces (all parts connected to each other in final assembly via intermediate parts).
Re claim 6, Kim teach wherein the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces (37, fig 15ba), a plurality of second interfaces is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates (see the rejection of claim 5), and a quantity of the first interfaces is less than a quantity of the second interfaces (noting in the instant combination the evaporator would have two 37 for each ribbed plate, and each ribbed plate has many more fins than two, see the rejection of claim 5); and at least one of the first interfaces is connected to a plurality of second interfaces (all parts connected to each other in final assembly via intermediate parts).
Re claim 7, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces, a plurality of second interfaces is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, a quantity of the first interfaces is the same as a quantity of the second interfaces; and the plurality of the first interfaces are connected to the plurality of the second interfaces in a one-to-one manner (noting a one-to-one amount exists, since “ a quantity” is broad, also see the rejection of claim 6).
Re claim 8, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the second interface is located at an edge of the at least one of the ribbed plates (“located at” very broad and can be near, figs).
Re claim 10, Kim teach wherein a part, of the second interface, that is connected to the first interface, is in a shape of a horn mouth (figs, in the instant combination).
Re claim 11, Kim teach wherein the at least one of the ribbed plates and the fourth side plate are perpendicular to each other (noting portions are perpendicular, figs, in the instant combination ).
Re claim 12, Rice et al. teach wherein the plurality of ribbed plates are disposed in parallel with each other or disposed in an included angle (figs).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. US 2012/0268877 Al in view of Kim US 20140131011 A1and Athavale US 20230337397 A1.
Re claim 9, Rice et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach a boss.
Athavale teach a boss (124) is disposed on an outer surface of the fourth side plate, and a first interface (126) is located on a top of the boss to provide a connection to a board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a boss as taught by Athavale in the Rice et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for advanced mounting to a variety of heat sources.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. US 2012/0268877 Al in view of Kim US 20140131011 A1 in view of Kim ‘018 US 20220354018 A1.
Re claim 13, Rice et al., as modidied, teach an evaporator and a plurality of ribbed plates connected to the evaporator, wherein; the evaporator has a first cavity, and the first cavity is configured to accommodate a working medium for vapor-liquid two-phase conversion; and at least one of the ribbed plates comprises a first side plate and a second side plate, a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts, a side that is of the second side plate and that faces the first side plate has a plurality of second protruding parts, and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to a corresponding one of the second protruding parts, so that a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels that are connected to the first cavity (see the rejections of claim 1 and 3).
Rice, as modified, fail to teach wireless details.
Kim ‘018 teach a wireless communication base station; comprising: a box (box formed by 10 and opposing wall, fig 4, 20), heat sources (C1; para 71, para 84), and a heat dissipation apparatus (60, 28, 29), wherein a mounting opening for mounting the heat dissipation apparatus is provided on the box (para 81, noting screw and fasteners have holes to go through), the heat sources are disposed in the box, and at least a part of the heat sources are thermally connected to an evaporator (c2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a wireless communication base station as taught by Kim ‘018 in the Rice, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for communication devices in electronics.
Re claim 14, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the at least one of the ribbed plates is a rolled and blown structure; or the at least one of the ribbed plates is a stamped and brazed structure.
The recitation of “wherein the at least one of the ribbed plates is a rolled and blown structure; or the at least one of the ribbed plates is a stamped and brazed structure” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Re claim 15, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the evaporator comprises a third side plate and a fourth side plate, edges of the third side plate and the fourth side plate are sealed and bonded, and the first cavity is formed between the first side plate and the second side plate, wherein the third side plate is configured to be in contact with heat sources (see the rejection of claim 3).
Re claim 16, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein a first interface is provided on the evaporator, the first interface is connected to the first cavity, a second interface is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, and the second interface is connected to at least one of the channels; and the first interface is connected to the second interface (see the rejection of claim 4).
Re claim 17, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the evaporator has one first interface, a plurality of second interfaces is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates and the one first interface is connected to the plurality of second interfaces (see the rejection of claim 5).
Re claim 18, Rice et al., as modified, G teach wherein the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces, a plurality of second interfaces is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, and a quantity of the first interfaces is less than a quantity of the second interfaces; and at least one of the first interfaces is connected to the plurality of second interfaces (see the rejection of claim 6).
Re claim 19, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces, a plurality of second interfaces is provided on the at least one of the ribbed plates, a quantity of the first interfaces is the same as a quantity of the second interfaces; and the plurality of the first interfaces are connected to the plurality of the second interfaces in a one-to-one manner (see the rejection of claim 7).
Re claim 20, Rice et al., as modified, teach wherein the second interface is located at an edge of the at least one of the ribbed plates (see the rejection of claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,686,532 B2.
This application is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
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