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 § 112
Claim 5 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a heat-exchange layer (e.g. element 2) formed of a plurality of copper granules (e.g. element 21, see par. 19). Claim 5, dependent from claim 1, recites wherein the granules (e.g. element 21) forming the heat-exchange layer (e.g. element 2)... form multiple superposed porous wick structure layers.
Claim 5, therefore, recites that the heat-exchange layer is formed of a plurality of copper granules… and wherein the powder-like granules… form multiple superposed porous wick structures.
However, referring to par. 19 of the present application, heat exchange layer can be formed as either:
one single layer with sparsely or densely distributed powder-like granules 21; or
a plurality of superposed layers of porous wick structure.
Accordingly, claim 5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is interpreted as reciting a heat-exchange layer, formed of a plurality of copper granules, said copper granules distributed over an outer surface of the radiating fins and forming multiple superposed layers (of granules).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2004128243) in view of Li (TWM636301U).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Yamamoto teaches a heat dissipation structure comprising a main body 1 having a plurality of radiating fins 2 made of aluminum (see pars. 14, 18, 22), and a heat-exchange layer 4 formed of a plurality of copper granules (see Fig. 1b, pars. 18-20).
Yamamoto does not teach a nickel layer applied on outer surfaces of the aluminum radiating fins, the heat-exchange layer formed of a plurality of copper granules applied over the nickel layer.
Referring to Fig. 1, Li, directed to a heat dissipation structure, teaches wherein a nickel protective layer 17 is applied on outer surfaces of an aluminium radiating fin 15 (see pages 2-3), wherein a copper element (e.g. heat pipe 13) is then applied to the nickel protective layer 17 (see pages 2-3).
Li teaches that aluminum radiating fins are prone to developing an aluminium oxide layer on their outer surfaces, and therefore cannot be welded and fixed to elements formed of copper (e.g. heat pipe 13, see pages 2-3) without forming a nickel protective layer between surfaces of the aluminum radiating fins and the copper elements (see pages 2-3)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Yamamoto by Li with the motivation of forming a nickel protective layer between surfaces of the aluminum radiating fins 2 and the copper elements and thereby preventing the development of an aluminum oxide layer on the outer surfaces of the aluminum radiating fins 2.
With respect to the recitation “where the nickel layer inhibits eutectic corrosion between the aluminum radiating fins and the copper granules”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Here, as the structure recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, said claimed properties or functions (e.g. inhibiting eutectic corrosion between the aluminum radiating fins and the copper granules) is presumed to be inherent. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
Regarding claim 5,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the granules forming the heat-exchange layer are distributed over the outer surfaces of the radiating fins and form multiple superposed porous wick structure layers (e.g. through multiple spraying or overlapped spraying).
Further, with respect to the recitation “and form multiple superposed porous wick structure layers”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Here, as the structure recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, said claimed properties or functions (e.g. forming multiple superposed porous wick structure layers) is presumed to be inherent. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
Regarding claim 6,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the main body has a heat absorption side and a heat dissipation side (see Fig. 1); and the radiating fins being extended from the heat dissipation side and being so arranged that they are spaced from one another (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the main body is a heat sink (see par. 14).
Regarding claim 8,
Yamamoto teaches wherein the heat absorbing side is configured to directly contact a heat source to absorb heat therefrom (see pars. 8, 14).
Regarding claim 9,
With respect to the recitation “wherein the copper granules provide a plurality of multi-angular contact surfaces providing increased total surface area within a given volume envelope as compared to a planar solid structure”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 I).
Here, as the structure recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, said claimed properties or functions (e.g. providing a plurality of multi-angular contact surfaces, etc.) is presumed to be inherent. As the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
Response to Arguments
Previously entered objections to the drawings are withdrawn. Previously entered rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Bunker or Yamamoto in view of Hashimoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamamoto in view of Li.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang teaches wherein aluminum fins are to be combined with different materials (e.g. copper), a nickel-plating process has to be performed to facilitate the combination of the aluminum fins with a copper made plate or heat pipe (see par. 5).
Applicants’ 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 STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights