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Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/17/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11 and Species A Fig. 1 in the reply filed on 9/17/2025 is acknowledged.
The applicant asserts that claims 4-5 read on Species A, however, the Examiner deems claims 4-5 readable only on Species C figure 3 because species A does not have a width, W varies along the longitudinal axis from a first width value to a second width value, and wherein the second width value is selected from a range between 0.1 times of the first width value to 5 times of the first width value, which is only shown in Species C figure 3. Claim 5 depends from claim 4. Claims 4-5 stand withdrawn from consideration
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 and second volume fraction in claim 1 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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0326134 hereinafter “Chen”).
With respect to claim 1, Chen discloses a vapor chamber (Fig. 1a, 1) comprising: a first thermally conductive plate and a second thermally conductive plate separated from each other (Fig. 1a, plates 11 and 12) by a plurality of bridging elements (Fig. 1a, bridging elements 13) to form a chamber having a first height, H1 (Fig. 1a, height of 100), wherein the vapor chamber having a length L along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1b, length from left to right) and a width W defined perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1b, width is from the top to bottom of the figure) and comprises a bending section configured to provide a bend around an axis in a direction parallel with the width W (Fig. 2, bend at R1 is in a direction R1 that is parallel to the width if R1 is 90 deg), said vapor chambers further having a first volume fraction of bridging elements (Fig. 1a and figure below, 2 middle elements 13 within the bend), and a non-bending section having a second volume fraction of bridging elements (Fig. 1a and figure below, four bridging elements 13 in the non-bending section), and wherein a ratio of the first volume fraction and the second volume fraction is less than 0.7 (The ratio of 2/4 is .5 which is below .7 or figure 1B shows 6 first elements and 12 second elements which is .5).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen also discloses wherein the plurality of bridging elements comprise columns (Fig. 1a, 13 are columns).
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0326134 hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Tan et al. (US Publication No.: 2017/0363366 hereinafter “Tan”).
With respect to claim 2, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen does not disclose wherein the ratio of the first volume fraction and the second volume fraction is selected from a range between 0 and 0.3.
Tan teaches having only bridging elements in the bending portion or first volume and none in the non-bending portion or second volume (Fig. 2c, bridging elements 12 within bend B volume and therefore having a ratio of 21/0=0 which is between 0-0.3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have removed the bridging elements of Chen in the non-bending portion as taught by Tan to reduce the overall cost of materials while maintaining structural strength within the bending region (Para 0032).
With respect to claim 6, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen discloses wherein the vapor chamber comprises an ‘n’ number of the bending sections (Fig. 2, one bend section at R1), and an ‘(n-1)’, n or ‘(n+1)’ number of the non-bending sections (n number of bends which is one).
Chen does not disclose wherein ‘n’ is selected from a range between 2 to 20, and wherein the non-bending section and the bending section are arranged alternately.
Tan teaches two bending sections on a vapor chamber that have non-bending sections between them (Fig. 4, two bend sections B and non-bending sections between). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the number of bend sections of Chen to be two as taught by Tan to have a U-shaped configuration for ease of clipping onto a cooling fin assembly (Para 0040).
Claims 3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0326134 hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Martin et al. (US Publication No.: 2023/0184422 hereinafter “Martin”).
With respect to claim 3, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen does not disclose wherein a ratio of the length, L and the width, W is selected from a range between 0.2 and 5.
Martin teaches a ratio of the length, L and the width, W is selected from a range between 0.2 and 5 (Para 0029). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the length and width of Chen to have a ratio between 0.2-5 as taught by Martin to have a desired overall length and width to maximize heat transfer (Para 0029).
With respect to claims 7-9, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen also discloses wherein the vapor chamber has a thickness, de (Para 0041 & 0048), wherein the bending section is configured to provide a bend having a bending angle, θ (Fig. 2, θ on opposite side of R1) , a bending radius, rb (Fig. 2, R1), and a bending length, Lb along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
Chen is silent to the bending length Lb is greater than or equal to π*(rb+de)/(360/ θ)(as per claim 7) wherein the bending radius, rb that is less than or equal to 3 mm (as per claim 8), wherein the bending angle, θ is selected from a range between 45 degrees and 135 degrees (as per claim 9).
Martin teaches the claimed equation for a bend length (Para 0058) wherein the bending radius, rb that is less than or equal to 3 mm (Para 0038) wherein the bending angle, θ is selected from a range between 45 degrees and 135 degrees (Para 0039). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the bend length, bending radius and bending angle of Chen to satisfy the equation and a bending radius less than or equal to 3mm and a bending angle between 45-135 degrees taught by Martin to have a desired bend length depending upon the angle of the desired bend and thickness of the vapor element (Para 0058) and to maintain a small bend radius with a sturdy enough bend that won’t collapse (Para 0008).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0326134 hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Hulse et al. (US Patent No.: 10,458,716 hereinafter “Hulse”).
With respect to claim 10, Chen discloses the vapor chamber according to claim 1 as discussed above. Chen also discloses wherein the chamber comprises a wick structure (Fig. 1a, 14), wherein the wick structure comprises a first wick structure attached to an inner surface of the first thermally conductive plate facing the chamber (Fig. 1a, wick 13 is on inner surface of plate 12 and faces chamber 100).
Chen does not disclose a second wick structure attached to an inner surface of the second thermally conductive plate facing the chamber.
Hulse teaches two wick structures on opposite plates (Fig. 1b, wick 110 is on top plate 102 and bottom plate 106 and faces a chamber 108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the vapor chamber of Chen with a second wick structure as taught by Hulse to obtain maximum passive fluid pumping performance (Col. 5, lines 13-18).
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