Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/405,314

ACTIVE HEAT DISSIPATION APPARATUS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
ROJOHN III, CLAIRE E
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kmw Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
364 granted / 557 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
583
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 557 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 2, 6 and 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/22/2025. Applicant's election with traverse of Species C, figure 13 and claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 in the reply filed on 11/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not patentably distinct and would not impose a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the structure of each species and embodiment varies drastically with different fluid flow paths and channel and fin configurations which would require a burden of employing different search strategies and different field of search unique to each embodiment. 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 1, 3-5 and 7-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other side thermal conduction panel", “the other side of the arbitrary reference”, and “the other side surface” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inside of the refrigerant flow space" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US Publication No.: 2019/0368823 hereinafter “Chan”) in view of Liu, Jin et al. (WO 2021/180038 see US Pub.: 2023/0078304 for translation hereinafter “Liu”). With respect to claim 1, Chan discloses an active heat dissipation apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a thermal conduction panel body (Fig. 1, 10) having a refrigerant flow space (Fig. 1, flow space in 130, 110, 120) configured to provide a space in which gas-liquid circulation is performed so that a refrigerant dissipates heat while changing phases in a closed space having an interior filled with the refrigerant (Para 0043 the fluid can turn into a vapor and flow within the vapor channel), wherein the refrigerant flow space comprises: a first refrigerant flow path that is a vaporization zone (Para 0046 and Fig. 5 shows refrigerant flow path 130 that has a vaporization zone from L to C) in which the thermal conduction panel body is supplied with heat from a heat generation element that is a heat dissipation target (Fig. 5, heating elements H1 and H2); and a second refrigerant flow path configured to serve as a route through which a liquid refrigerant in the refrigerant, which is condensed into a liquid state from a gaseous state, flows toward the first refrigerant flow path by surface tension or gravity (Para 0046-0047, flow path D1 vapor flowing from heat source turns into liquid), the plates being metal (Para 0116-0117). Chan does not disclose the product by process limitation of the thermal conduction panel body defines the refrigerant flow space by bending a single metal panel member and comprises: one side thermal conduction panel provided at one side of an arbitrary reference line T before the bending and configured to define one side surface in a thickness direction of the refrigerant flow space after the bending; and the other side thermal conduction panel provided at the other side of the arbitrary reference line T before the bending and configured to define the other side surface in the thickness direction of the refrigerant flow space after the bending, and wherein the first refrigerant flow path is symmetrically formed in the thickness direction of the refrigerant flow space based on the arbitrary reference line T after the bending. Liu teaches bending a thermal conduction panel body from a single plate that is bent at one side of an arbitrary reference line T (Fig. 4, plate is bent at the centerline also shown in figure 5-6, bent at 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus of Chan to be made from a single piece that is bent as taught by Liu for ease of assembly and better sealing performance (Para 0029). It is noted that claim 1 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. by bending) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, 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.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to claim 3, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Chan also discloses wherein after the bending, one side thermal conduction panel and the other side thermal conduction panel are joined to each other along a rim end of a heat dissipation plate portion defined as a region excluding a press-fitting end at which the first refrigerant flow path is formed (Fig. 2-5, plates 100 and 200 are joined together and have a rim end where flow path in 130 is formed). It is noted that claim 3 contains a product by process limitation (i.e. after the bending… are joined together by press-fitting…) and that the product by process limitation does not limit the claim to recite the step, just the structure obtained by performing the step. Further, 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.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With respect to claim 4, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Chan also discloses further comprising: an absorber disposed in the first refrigerant flow path and having a plurality of pores in order to absorb the liquid refrigerant in the refrigerant flow space and vaporize the liquid refrigerant to a gaseous refrigerant (Para 0036 and Figs. 2-4, absorber 300 has a capillary structure). With respect to claim 5, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 4 as discussed above. Chan also discloses wherein the absorber absorbs the liquid refrigerant guided to the first refrigerant flow path through the second refrigerant flow path and then transmits the liquid refrigerant in a direction different from a gravitational direction (Para 0047 and Fig. 5, 300 helps transmit the liquid in D2 which is opposite of a gravitational direction G). With respect to claim 7, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Chan also discloses wherein the second refrigerant flow path is formed so that after the liquid refrigerant is condensed to a predetermined magnitude or larger, a dispersion flow toward the adjacent second refrigerant flow paths is suppressed by surface tension or gravity, and the gaseous refrigerant in a gaseous state flows through a space between the adjacent second refrigerant flow paths that is a space in which no liquid refrigerant is present (Fig. 5 and Para 0046-0047). With respect to claim 8, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Chan also discloses wherein the second refrigerant flow path is defined as a space between a plurality of inclined guides protruding toward the inside of the refrigerant flow space from at least one of one side thermal conduction panel and the other side thermal conduction panel (Figs. 4-5, flow path in 110 are protruding inclined guides on panels 100 and 200). With respect to claim 9, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above. Chan also discloses wherein the refrigerant flow space of the thermal conduction panel body further comprises a plurality of third refrigerant flow paths defined as portions on which the plurality of inclined guides is formed on surfaces of the thermal conduction panel body that face each other, the plurality of third refrigerant flow paths being defined as portions spaced apart from each other without being joined in the refrigerant flow space (Fig. 5, plurality of third flow paths from 120 into 110 that have space between the plates for the flow path that do not come in contact as shown in figure 3 and 8). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US Publication No.: 2019/0368823 hereinafter “Chan”) in view of Liu, Jin et al. (WO 2021/180038 see US Pub.: 2023/0078304 for translation hereinafter “Liu”) and further in view of Blersch et al. (US Publication No.: 2019/0366877 hereinafter “Blersch”). With respect to claim 10, Chan and Liu teach the active heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. Chan also discloses the panel member can be made from a metal (Para 0116) but is silent to the metal is made of stainless steel. Blersch teaches a heat dissipation apparatus with metal panels that are made from stainless steel (Para 0027). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the metal panels of Chan to be stainless steel as taught by Blersch to have a desired heat transfer property and durability and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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. /CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604438
MODULE WITH IMPROVED THERMAL COOLING PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593555
CERAMIC SUBSTRATE WITH HEAT SINK AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571292
EXHAUST HEAT RECOVERY FOR A MOBILE POWER GENERATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575060
COOLING SYSTEM, CABINET, AND DATA CENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571576
HOT SWAPPABLE PUMP DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 557 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