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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected after the submitted amendment of 2/22/26. Claim 6 as amended now does not read on the elected species of A-I (Fig. 4) and reads only on non-elected species A-III(Fig. 6) and A-VI (Fig. 9). Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0211419) in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent 10,066,876).
Regarding claim 1, Shih teaches a vapor chamber structure (element 70) with a partially increased plate thickness (per fig. 2C), comprising: an upper plate (element 52); and a lower plate (element 54 & 78), superposed with the upper plate (per fig. 2C), a chamber being formed between the upper plate and the lower plate (per fig. 2C, volume including element 18), wherein the lower plate comprises a first lower plate (element 78) and a second lower plate (element 54), the first lower plate comprises a first thickness (per fig. 2C), the second lower plate is disposed with a through hole (element 56) for being inserted by the first lower plate to be closely connected (per fig. 2C and described in para. 022-0024), the through hole comprises a second thickness (per fig. 2C), and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (per fig. 2C).
Shih does not teach multiple support structures supported between the upper plate and the lower plate being disposed in the chamber and wherein the first lower plate comprises an inner surface, and the inner surface of the first lower plate is disposed with multiple support portions. Zhou teaches multiple support structures (elements 114) supported between the upper plate (element 104, note that the chamber may be rotated such that heat outgoing is top) and the lower plate (element 102, note that the chamber may be rotated such that heat incoming is bottom) being disposed in the chamber (per fig. 1),and Zhou teaches the supports being from the evaporative surface (where the heat enters; col. 3, ln 63-col. 4, ln 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Shih to include the supports of Zhou and that those would include the evaporative surface which is the inner surface of the first lower plate, the motivate for such would be withstand outside pressures (col. 3, ln 63-col. 4, ln 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shih teaches the second lower plate and the first lower plate are closely connected by welding (para. 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the supports are part of the lower plate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant appears to be arguing that the claim as written requires the supports to be extensions of the first lower plate (a singular structure), the claim as written does not require such. The broadest reasonable reading of disposed with merely requires supports on the first surface.
Examiner notes that amendments removed the previous 112(b) rejections.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights