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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first wick and second wick of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Applicants have provided new figure 15 to show this, but the claimed subject matter is not shown, the figure only appears to show one wick structure not two, the issue is that element 70 does not appear to be a wick structure instead it is the container (see objection below).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "70" and "10" have both been used to designate same structure. Applicant appears to have identified the container as the first wicks structure improperly. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are 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. Both amended claims include new limitation of “the intermediate portion region is thermally connected with neither the heating element nor heat radiating fins”. The written description in the amendment does not support this limitation. While the specification does include the phrase it does not provide a written description of how such occurs (mere statement is not support or description). The limitation of “thermal connected” merely requires thermal connection and as this section of the housing connects to the heating element and the heat radiating fins as it is the intermediate region between the two. Thus, heat transfer must physically occur for the heat to be transferred from one to the other both through the structure itself and the fluid inside, either alone would be a “thermal connection”. Further, this is part of the container which the specification identifies as “stainless steel, copper, copper alloy, aluminum, aluminum alloy, tin, tin alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, nickel, and nickel alloy” (para. 0034) and these (and all materials) have a thermal conductivity which means as a structure thermal connection must occur. Thus, the written description does not support this limitation.
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected for dependence from one of the above claims.
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 1-2, 10, 12, 17, and 19 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.
Claims 1 and 19 are indefinite for the new limitation of “the intermediate portion region is thermally connected with neither the heating element nor heat radiating fins”. Oen skilled in the art would not be clear how such does not occur or could be accomplished. While the specification does include the phrase it does not provide a written description of how such occurs or is accomplished (note that mere statement is not enough). The limitation of “thermal connected” merely requires thermal connection and as this section of the housing physically connects to the heating element and the heat radiating fins as it is the intermediate region between the two. Thus, heat transfer must physically occur for the heat to be transferred from one to the other both through the structure itself and the fluid inside, either alone would be a “thermal connection”. Further, this is part of the container which the specification identifies as “stainless steel, copper, copper alloy, aluminum, aluminum alloy, tin, tin alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, nickel, and nickel alloy” (para. 0034) and these (and all materials) have a thermal conductivity which means as a structure thermal connection must occur. Thus, one skilled in the art would not know or be apprised of how there is no thermal connection. The meaning or intent may be due to translation issues. The claims will be examined without this limitation as there is no reasonable interpretation of limitation due to the 112b issue.
Claims 1 and 19 are further indefinite for the limitation of “the intermediate portion region functions as an avoidance portion for avoiding another component mounted on a board where the heating element is mounted” as it is unclear what structure applicant is claiming to one skilled in the art. It is unclear if applicant is claiming a specific shape, a capability such as flexibility (the ability to be bent or shaped), or a specific mounting potion requirement.
Further, this language in claim 1 and 19 makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The language requires the application of the device to a board with a component it must avoid for the claim to be read n, thus making it impossible to tell if the claim has been violated until use/application which makes the limitation indefinite. The claims will be examined without this limitation as there is no reasonable interpretation of limitation due to the multiple 112b issues.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the limitations "wherein the heat radiating fins " as the claim it depends from includes “one or more heat radiating fins”. This creates confusion for one skilled in the art what is being claimed, it is unclear if these are the same fin/fins. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The " wherein heat radiating fins " requires a plurality of fins where the “one or more” allows for a single fin, thus it is unclear if there are the same fin/fins. The limitations will be examined as "wherein the one or more heat radiating fins".
Claim 19 is indefinite for the limitations "wherein heat radiating fins " and “no heat radiating fins” as the claim early includes “one or more heat radiating fins”. This creates confusion for one skilled in the art what is being claimed, it is unclear if these are the same fin/fins. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The " wherein heat radiating fins " and “no heat radiating fins” absolutely require a plurality of fins where the “one or more” allows for a single fin, thus it is unclear if there are the same fin/fins. The limitations will be examined as "wherein the one or more heat radiating fins " and “none of the one or more heat radiating fins”.
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected for dependence from one of the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (U.S. Patent 8,792,240).
Regarding claim 1, Feng teaches a heat sink (Fig. 5) comprising: a container (element 1) in which a cavity (elements 6 & 7) is formed, the container having a first principal surface (per annotated figure below) and a second principal surface (per annotated figure below) opposite the first principal surface; a working fluid (claim 4) encapsulated in the cavity (claim 4), and a steam (“water” is a fluid taught see claim 10) flow path defined in the cavity and through which the working fluid in a gas phase flows (channel shown in fig. 5; claim 4), wherein the container has a flat portion (per annotated figure below) and a protruding part (per annotated figure below) projecting in an external direction from the flat portion, an inner space of the protruding part (element 6) of the container is in communication with an inner space of the flat portion (element 7) to form the cavity (per fig. 5), the protruding part of the container includes a heat receiver (element 5) that is to be thermally connected with a heating element (col. 3, ln 26-29) that is a cooling target, and the flat portion of the container has an intermediate portion region continuous (element 82) from the protruding part and a heat radiator region (region of element 83) more distant from the protruding part than the intermediate portion region and thermally connected with one or more heat radiating fins (element 2). Feng teaches the heat radiator region of the container is wider than the protruding part (per figure 5 this section is wider, note that the claim does not require this “wide section to be oriented any specific way, thus as shown it reads on the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Feng teaches the heat radiating fin includes a first heat radiating fin thermally connected with the first principal surface and a second heat radiating fin thermally connected with the second principal surface (per fig. 5 fins come off both of these surfaces, thus reading on the claim).
Regarding claim 12, Feng teaches the container is in a shape having a longitudinal direction (fig. 5 bottom->top) and a lateral direction (fig. 5 left->right side) in plan view, one end in the longitudinal direction of the container is provided with the protruding part (per fig. 5) , and another end in the longitudinal direction of the container is the heat radiator region (per fig. 5, note that the claim does not limit the radiator section to the end, merely requires it to be there).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (U.S. Patent 8,792,240) in view of Wenger (U.S. PGPub 2009/0025907).
Regarding claim 10, Feng does not teach the container has a part becoming wider as progress from the protruding part toward the heat radiator region.
Wenger teaches the condenser can have a progressively reducing diameter proceeding through the condenser (para. 0045). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Feng such that the condenser channel has a progressively reducing diameter proceeding through the condenser as it gets back toward the evaporator (the protruding part), the motivation would be maintain pressure and fluid flow.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (U.S. Patent 8,792,240) in view of Kare et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0174701).
Feng does not expressly teach the protruding part is provided with a first wick structure, and the side surface of the protruding part and the flat portion and the side surface of the container are provided with a second wick structure having a smaller capillary force than the first wick structure, so that the wick structure is provided across the inner surface of the container. It is noted that Feng generically teaches wick structures in the evaporator and condenser regions.
Kare teaches a first wick structure (element 221e), on the entire inside of the evaporator and a second wick structure (element 221f/g), on the entirety of the condenser section, having a smaller capillary force than the first wick structure (per para. 0075 this is due to the smaller pore size). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Feng to include the wick structure of Kare as claimed in the internal sections, the motivation would be to withstand higher pressure differential (para. 0087).
Claim with no prior art rejection
Claim 19 has no prior art rejections, but does have a 112 rejections and thus is not allowable. Allowability will be based on the resolution of the 112 issue and search and consideration based off that resolution. The limitations of “wherein heat radiating fins are provided only at the heat radiator region on both the first principal surface and the second principal surface, with no heat radiating fins at the protruding part or the intermediate portion region” in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendment of the drawings do not fully correct the prior drawing objections, see the above drawing objections for details.
Applicants’ amendment overcome the prior 112b rejections but have resulted in new 112a/b rejections.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the prior art are anticipatory and moot in light of the 112a/b rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
