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.
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 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, 9-10, 12, and 17 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 sectional area" and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has not previously claimed a sectional area. Thus making it unclear if applicant meant to claim previously claimed section/area or a new element.
The limitation “so that the sectional area of the container in the orthogonal direction relative to the heat transport direction is increased” in claim 1 is a relative term/limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is increased” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim as written makes it unclear to one skilled in the art what “is increased” is compared to or measured. There is no baseline for “increasing” in the claim. Applicant may be trying to claim that one section is deeper at one part than another, or may be trying to claim some unclear ratio requirement. With no baseline the term “is increased” is indefinite. The claim will be examined as any comparison of the sections being greater due to stacking/depth reads on the limitation.
Claim 19 is indefinite for the C limitations " wherein heat radiating fins " and “no heat radiating fins” as the claim early includes “a heat radiating fin”. This creates confusion to one skilled in the art what is being claimed, it is unclear if the single fin as claimed is part of the plurality or separate, the single was supposed to be plural, and if the single is part of the limitation of “no heat radiating fins at the protruding part or the intermediate portion region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 9-10, 12, and 17 are rejected for dependence to one or more of the above rejected 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, 9, 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 a heat radiating fin (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 required this “wide section to be oriented any specific way, thus as shown it reads on the claim) and so that the sectional area of the container in the orthogonal direction relative to the heat transport direction is increased (as per the 112b above the stacking of the evaporator on top of the condenser results in the structure being greater in depth than a flat heat exchanger thus reading 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 fin s come off both of these surfaces, thus reading on the claim).
Regarding claim 9, 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 required this “wide section to be oriented any specific way, thus as shown it read son the claim), so that the sectional area of the container in the orthogonal direction relative to the heat transport direction is increased.
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
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang (U.S. PGPub 2013/0025829).
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches a heat sink (element 1) comprising: a container in which a cavity is formed (space between element 10 and 40 in fig. 4), the container having a first principal surface (bottom of element 10) and a second principal surface (top of element 40) opposite the first principal surface; a working fluid encapsulated in the cavity (per abstract); and a steam flow path defined in the cavity and through which the working fluid in a gas phase flows (per fig. 4); wherein the container has a flat portion (bottom of element 10 not including element 11) and a protruding part (element 11) projecting in an external direction from the flat portion (per fig. 4); the container includes one plate-shaped body (element 10) and another plate-shaped body (element 40) opposite the one plate-shaped body, the cavity being a sealed space formed between the one plate-shaped body and the other plate-shaped body (per fig. 4), and the one plate-shaped body has the protruding part projecting in the external direction (per fig. 4), the inner space of the container is in an interconnected integral form (per fig. 4);an inner space of the protruding part of the container is in communication with an inner space of the flat portion to form the cavity (per fig. 4);the protruding part of the container includes a heat receiver (bottom of element 11, per fig. 4) that is to be thermally connected with a heating element (element 100) that is a cooling target; and the flat portion of the container has an intermediate portion region (region just outside element 11, note the claim does not define this as more than an intermediate portion) continuous from the protruding part and a heat radiator region (the outer edge the structure 1) of more distant from the protruding part than the intermediate portion region and thermally connected with a heat radiating fin (elements 200).
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 rejection, but does have a 112 rejection and thus is not allowable. Allowability will be based on the resolution of the 112 issue and search and consideration based off that resolution.
Response to Arguments
Original indication of 112 rejections have been removed, note there are new 112 rejections due to the amendments of 2/19/26.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
It is noted that the rejection has been clarified to better describe the rejected material. As shown the width argued is clearly wider as claimed.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights