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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wen et al. US 11,913,726 B2.
Re claim 1, Wen et al. teach a heat dissipation apparatus comprising: an evaporator (110, 120) and a plurality of ribbed plates (200) 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, wherein the evaporator comprises a third side plate and a fourth side plate, wherein edges of the third side plate and the fourth side plate are sealed and bonded, and the first cavity is formed between the third side plate and the fourth side plate, and wherein the third side plate (120) is configured to be in contact with a heat source (col 6 lines 20-35);
and at least one each of the ribbed plates comprises: a first side plate and a second side plate (200a, 200b); forming a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate (col 5), wherein a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts (col 6), 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 (walls protrude to make two connections in between tip and base, fig 4, addition to connections of opposing walls to create 210a), so that the second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels (210f) that are connected to the first cavity (col 5 last para),
and a plurality of second interfaces (interfaces forming tips/.tops of fins fig 4, and bottom interfaces connecting to top of evaporator) arranged along a height direction of the ribbed plates, each located at an edge of the ribbed plates and connected to the second cavity, wherein a height of the second cavity in the height direction is greater than a height of the first cavity (fig 4); wherein for each of the ribbed plates, the evaporator has at least one first interface (112) connected to the plurality of second interfaces, wherein a quantity of the at least one first interface is less than a quantity of the second interfaces (one for each top and bottom), or wherein for each of the ribbed plates, the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces connected to the plurality of second interfaces in a one-to-one manner, wherein a quantity of the first interfaces is the same as a quantity of the second interfaces.
Re claim 2, Wen et al. 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 5, Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one first interface is one first interface (figs see the rejection of claim 1, noting there is one fore two, or the claim limitations are met one only one 112 is considered the “one first interface”).
Re claim 9, Wen et al. teach wherein a boss (120v) is disposed on an outer surface of the fourth side plate, and a first interface (flat surface of boss) is located on a top of the boss.
Re claim 11, Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one of each of the ribbed plates and the fourth side plate are perpendicular to each other (figs).
Re claim 12, Wen et al. teach wherein the plurality of ribbed plates are disposed in parallel with each other or disposed in an included angle (figs).
Re claim 21, Wen et al. teach wherein the plurality of ribbed plates are disposed in an included angle, and the included angle is defined between the fourth side plate of the evaporator and each of the ribbed plates, and the included angle ranges from 0 degrees to 90 degrees (figs).
Re claim 23, Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one first interface extends in the height direction or the plurality of first interfaces are arranged along the height direction (figs).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. in view of Kim US 20140131011 A1.
Re claim 10, Wen et al. fail to explicitly teach a shape.
Kim teach wherein a part, of each of the second interfaces, that is connected to the at least one first interface, is in a shape of a horn mouth (figs 4A, 4BA 4B) to create a flow path with internal channels 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 shape as taught by Kim in the Wen et al. invention in order to advantageously allow to dissipate the high-density heat generated in a small footprint area to ensure safe operation of such heat-generating electronic components.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. in view of Kim ‘018 US 20220354018 A1.
Re claim 13, Wen et al. teach a heat dissipation apparatus comprising: an evaporator (110, 120) and a plurality of ribbed plates (200) 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, wherein the evaporator comprises a third side plate and a fourth side plate, wherein edges of the third side plate and the fourth side plate are sealed and bonded, and the first cavity is formed between the third side plate and the fourth side plate, and wherein the third side plate (120) is configured to be in contact with a heat source (col 6 lines 20-35);
and at least one each of the ribbed plates comprises:
a first side plate and a second side plate (200a, 200b); forming a second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate (col 5), wherein a side that is of the first side plate and that faces the second side plate has a plurality of first protruding parts (col 6), 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 (walls protrude to make two connections in between tip and base, fig 4, addition to connections of opposing walls to create 210a),
and each of the first protruding parts is fixedly connected to a corresponding one of the second protruding parts,
so that the second cavity between the first side plate and the second side plate is divided into channels (210f) that are connected to the first cavity (col 5 last para),
and a plurality of second interfaces (interfaces forming tips/.tops of fins fig 4, and bottom interfaces connecting to top of evaporator) arranged along a height direction of the ribbed plates, each located at an edge of the ribbed plates and connected to the second cavity, wherein a height of the second cavity in the height direction is greater than a height of the first cavity (fig 4);
wherein for each of the ribbed plates, the evaporator has at least one first interface (112) connected to the plurality of second interfaces, wherein a quantity of the at least one first interface is less than a quantity of the second interfaces (one for each top and bottom), or wherein for each of the ribbed plates, the evaporator has a plurality of first interfaces connected to the plurality of second interfaces in a one-to-one manner, wherein a quantity of the first interfaces is the same as a quantity of the second interfaces (see the rejection of claim 1).
Wen et al. 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 Wen et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for communication devices in electronics.
Re claim 14, Wen et al. 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 17, Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one first interface is one first interface (figs see the rejection of claim 1, noting there is one fore two, or the claim limitations are met one only one 112 is considered the “one first interface”).
Re claim 22, Wen et al. teach wherein the plurality of ribbed plates are disposed in an included angle, and the included angle is defined between the fourth side plate of the evaporator and each of the ribbed plates, and the included angle ranges from 0 degrees to 90 degrees (figs).
Re claim 24, Wen et al. teach wherein the at least one first interface extends in the height direction or the plurality of first interfaces are arranged along the height direction (figs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (and noting arguments with re” to claim 13 were stated to be the same/similar as the arguments for claim 1) 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.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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