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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed 2/1/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and claims 7-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pitzak et al. (US Publication No.: 2020/0141661 hereinafter “Pitzak”).
With respect to claim 1, Pitzak discloses a flexible heat dissipation device (Fig. 10b, 520 and Para 0012 explains its configured to bend), comprising: a first flexible heat dissipation strip (Fig. 10b, strip 523), comprising a first body portion (See figure below) and a first end portion (Fig. 10b, end at 1034), the first end portion being connected to the first body portion (Fig. 10b, end of 523 at 1034 is connected to the body portion); and a second flexible heat dissipation strip (Fig. 10b, 524), comprising a second body portion (See figure below) and a second end portion (Fig. 10b, second end portion at 1035), the second end portion being connected to the second body portion (Fig. 10b, end of 524 at 1035 is connected to the body portion), wherein; the first body portion and the second body portion form a strip winding portion (See figure below), and the first end portion is connected to the second end portion to form a fitting portion (See figure below, first end portion and second end portion are connected via the heat pipe and have a fitting portion on the heat pipe).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Pitzak discloses the flexible heat dissipation device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Pitzak also discloses wherein the first end portion overlaps the second end portion (Fig. 10b, the end portion of 1034 overlaps an end portion of 1035).
With respect to claim 3, Pitzak discloses the flexible heat dissipation device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Pitzak also discloses wherein the first flexible heat dissipation strip further comprises a first tail end portion (Fig. 10b, top of 523 has a tail end), the first tail end portion is connected to an other end of the first body portion (Fig. 10b, tail end of 523 is at the top end), the second flexible heat dissipation strip further comprises a second tail end portion (Fig. 10b, top of 524 has a tail end), and the second tail end portion is connected to an other end of the second body portion (Fig. 10b, tail end of 524 is at the top end).
With respect to claim 4, Pitzak discloses the flexible heat dissipation device according to claim 3 as discussed above. Pitzak also discloses wherein the first tail end portion is connected to the second tail end portion (Fig. 10b, top ends of 523 and 524 are in contact and thermally connected as explained in Para 0095).
With respect to claim 5, Pitzak discloses the flexible heat dissipation device according to claim 4 as discussed above. Pitzak also discloses wherein the first flexible heat dissipation strip and the second flexible heat dissipation strip are integrally formed (Fig. 10b, 523 and 524 are a single piece of carbon fiber as explained in Para 0093-0095).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (pages 8-10) that the reference does not teach the first end portion is connected to the second end portion to form a fitting portion, the Examiner disagrees. Reference Pitzak has a first and second end portion both attached to a heat pipe which teaches the broad limitation of is connected since they are connected via the heat pipe. Nothing in the claim states the end portions are flat and lay on top of each other to form a fitting portion. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show "wherein the first tail end portion and the second tail end portion form a folded portion, the folded portion is triangular." The closest prior art of record discloses ends of heat exchange strips connected to each other, but not forming a folded portion into a triangle. Although it is well known to provide heat exchange pins or strips connected to each other at one end, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate the triangular fold as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claim 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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