Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/366,570

HEAT DISSIPATION STRUCTURE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 07, 2023
Examiner
DUONG, THO V
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Leotek Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 1188 resolved
-3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1231
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1188 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Applicant’s amendment filed 9/4/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 3, 5, 8 and 10 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4,6-7, 9 and 11have 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 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 1-2, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20040100773A1) in view of Lee Cheng Ping (US 7,265,981). Hoffman discloses (figures 1-3) a heat dissipation structure adapted to dissipate heat from a heat generating component (114), the heat dissipation structure comprising a central housing, comprising a top portion (210) and a bottom portion (110) opposite to each other, an internal space (210) located between the top portion and the bottom portion, and a first opening communicating with the internal space, wherein the top portion comprises a plurality of through holes (214), and the bottom portion (110) is connected to the heat generating component; and a first wing housing (212), connected to the central housing and comprising a first entrance distant from the central housing and communicating with the first opening (see figure A), wherein, the first entrance has a larger dimension than the first opening (paragraph 29, the inlet 212 flanged outwardly to capture a greater volume of incoming air), and an air flow sequentially flowing through the first entrance, the first opening, the internal space and flowing out from the through holes (see paragraph 24, figures 2 and A). Regarding claim 1, Hoffman does not disclose that a heat generating component is located outside the internal space. Lee Chen Ping discloses (figures 4 and 6) a heat dissipation structure that is adapted to dissipate heat from a heat generating component (21,22), wherein the heat generating component (21,22) is attached on backside of a heat sink (3) so that the heat generating component is located outside the internal space that contains the heat sink (3) for a purpose of reducing noise and cooling a large area of the device. (column 1, line 32-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lee Chen Ping’s teaching in Hoffman’s device for a purpose of reducing noise and cooling a large area of the device. Regarding claim 2, Hoffman further discloses (figures 2, 3 and A) that the first wing housing (212) comprising a diverging area, the first opening is adjacent to a first side of the diverging area, the first entrance is formed on a second side of the diverging area, and the diverging area gradually expands from the first side towards the second side. Regarding claim 4, Hoffman discloses (figure A) that the first wing housing comprises a first wing portion and a second wing portion, one of the first wing portion and the second wing portion extends parallel to the central housing, the other of the first wing portion and the second wing portion comprises a connection connected to the central housing and an inclined section extending from the connection in a bent manner, and the inclined section is inclined in a direction away from the central housing. Regarding claim 11, Hoffman further discloses (figure 2-3 and ++paragraph 25) at least one heat dissipation fin (116), wherein the heat dissipation fin is located in the internal space and disposed on the top portion or/and the bottom portion. PNG media_image1.png 713 384 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 2 with limitations shown. Claims 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20040100773A1) and Lee Cheng Ping (US 7,265,981) in view of Unanoun (CN 112087928A). Hoffman and Lee substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that heat dissipation structure further comprising a second wing housing that includes the structural limitations of the first wing (as in claim 1, 2 and 4, wherein the second wing housing of claim 6 correspond to the first wing housing in claim 1, the second wing housing of claim 7 corresponds to the first wing housing in claim 2 and the second wing housing of claim 9 corresponds to the first wing housing in claim 4) but located on the opposite side with the first wing housing from the central housing. Unanoun discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 27) a heat dissipation structure comprises two identical enlarged wing housing (6) on opposite side of the central housing (8) for a purpose of increasing the amount of air to flow into the heat dissipation structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Unanoun’s teaching of having the two identical wing housing on opposite side of the central housing in Hoffman’s device to obtain a second wing housing similar the first housing disclosed in Hoffman but on the other side of the central housing for a purpose of increasing the amount of air to flow into the heat dissipation structure, hence enhancing the heat dissipation performance of the heat dissipation structure. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhopte et al. (US 10133321B1) discloses an isolated active cooling system. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601550
GROOVED VAPOR CHAMBER CAPILLARY REFLOW STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601548
Systems and Methods for Thermal Management Using Separable Heat Pipes and Methods of Manufacture Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581620
EXIT CHANNEL CONFIGURATION FOR MEMS-BASED ACTUATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12535278
HEAT DISSIPATION DEVICE OF HEAT PIPE COMBINED WITH VAPOR CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529525
HEAT DIFFUSION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+17.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1188 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month