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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 5/14/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-20 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 2/4/2026 and is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f). “Wick Structure” in claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) since wick structure is an art recognized term for structures that form a capillary force to move working fluids and thus the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
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 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US2009/0236085A1, as previously cited) in view of Bennett (US2005/0126757A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Wang teaches a thermal diffusion device (Figure 8) comprising:
a housing (2) including a first inner wall surface (top surface of 20) and a second inner wall surface (bottom surface of 21) facing each other in a thickness direction; a working medium sealed in an inner space of the housing (Paragraph 4, 29); and a wick structure (22, 1, 23) in the inner space of the housing, the wick structure including a supporting portion (10) in contact with the first inner wall surface and a portion having holes (11) composed of a same material as the supporting portion and integral with the supporting portion (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-23, 29; Paragraph 29 teaches the supporting plate 1 can be coated with capillary material 23, thus making the supporting plate a wick structure. Additionally, or alternatively, the plate also includes capillary material 22 on the inner surfaces, wherein the supporting portion and hole portions are in contact with the capillary material 22).
Wang teaches the holes (Figures 1-8) but fails to specifically teach a peripheral edge of a hole of the portion having holes includes a projecting portion that approaches the first inner wall surface or the second inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction.
However, Bennett teaches a peripheral edge of a hole of the portion having holes includes a projecting portion (26, 103, 203, 303, 400, 500) that approaches the second inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction (Figures 1-6; Paragraphs 18-25).
Therefore, in view of Bennett's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add projecting portions to the holes of Wang in order to better direct the flow of vapor and liquids, thereby improving working fluid circulation in the device (Paragraphs 5-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to orient the projections towards the first or second surface of Wang, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, A).
Re Claim 2. Wang teaches the supporting portion has a tapered shape with a width that decreases from the portion having holes toward the first inner wall surface (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29).
Re Claim 3. Wang teaches when the portion having holes is viewed in the thickness direction, a hole of the portion having holes does not exist in a region overlapping with the supporting portion (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29).
Re Claim 4. Wang teaches the supporting portion and the portion having holes are composed of a porous material (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29; The capillary structure is porous. Additionally, the structure has holes, thus rendering the structure porous).
Re Claim 5. Wang teaches a thickness of the supporting portion is same as or smaller that a thickness of the portion having holes (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29).
Re Claim 6. Wang teaches the supporting portion includes a plurality of columnar members (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29).
Re Claim 9. Wang teaches the supporting portion is a recessed portion relative to the portion having holes (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 22-29).
Re Claim 10. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion approaches the second inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8, Paragraphs 22-29; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25).
Re Claim 11. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is constant in a direction approaching the second inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25). Bennett teaches various shapes, wherein it would be obvious to try straight vertical projections since that is a common and well-known configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang, by trying the projecting portion has a shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is constant in a direction approaching the second inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Re Claim 12. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a tapered shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is not constant in a direction approaching the second inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25, Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 illustrates a tapered configuration).
Re Claim 13. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a tapered shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion becomes narrower in a direction approaching the second inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25, Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 illustrates a tapered configuration).
Re Claim 14. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion includes a lid portion that makes an opening at an end portion of the projecting portion narrow (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25; Figures 2-3 of Bennett illustrates a lid).
Re Claim 15. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion approaches the first inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8, Paragraphs 22-29; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25).
Re Claim 16. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is constant in a direction approaching the first inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25). (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25). Bennett teaches various shapes, wherein it would be obvious to try straight vertical projections since that is a common and well-known configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang, by trying the projecting portion has a shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is constant in a direction approaching the first inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Re Claim 17. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a tapered shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion is not constant in a direction approaching the first inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25; Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 illustrates a tapered configuration).
Re Claim 18. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion has a tapered shape in which a distance between outer walls of the projecting portion becomes narrower in a direction approaching the first inner wall surface in a cross section of the wick structure in the thickness direction (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25; Figures 1, 4, 5, 6 illustrates a tapered configuration).
Re Claim 19. Wang as modified by Bennett teach the projecting portion includes a lid portion that makes an opening at an end portion of the projecting portion narrow (Wang Figures 1-8; Bennett Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 18-25; Figures 2-3 of Bennett illustrates a lid).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US2009/0236085A1, as previously cited) in view of Bennett (US2005/0126757A1, as previously cited) in view of Toratani (US2020/0025459A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 7. Wang teaches individual columnar members (Figures 1-8) but fails to specifically teach the supporting portion includes a plurality of rail-shaped members.
However, Toratani teaches it is known to form the supporting members as columns (170 in Figure 1) or as a plurality of rail-shaped members (170 in Figure 3).
Therefore, in view of Toratani 's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the supporting portion of Wang as columns or rails in order to achieve a desired structural stiffness of the supporting portion as well as to increase the heat transport capacity of the system (Toratani Paragraph 41).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US2009/0236085A1, as previously cited) in view of Bennett (US2005/0126757A1, as previously cited) in view of Ben-Menahem (US2020/0103175A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 8. Wang teaches the portion having holes is viewed in the thickness direction (Figures 1-8) but fails to specifically teach a hole of the portion having holes exists in a region overlapping with the supporting portion.
However, Ben-Menahem teaches the portion (302) having holes (316) is viewed in the thickness direction, a hole of the portion having holes exists in a region overlapping with the supporting portion (308) (Figure 4).
Therefore, in view of Ben-Menahem's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to overlap the holes of Wang with the supporting portion in order to increase the surface area of the wick structure, thereby providing greater heat transport capacity.
Re Claim 20. Wang teaches the thermal diffusion device according to claim 1 (see above) but fails to specifically teach use of the thermal diffusion device in an electronic device. However, Ben-Menahem teaches an electronic device (106) comprising a thermal diffusion device (300) (Figures 3A-4; Paragraphs 33, 43).
Therefore, in view of Ben-Menahem's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the thermal diffusion device with an electronic device as said use is well-known and established in the art. It is well-known to provide thermal diffusion devices for electronic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that the prior art fails to teach “a peripheral edge of a hole of the portion having holes includes a projecting portion that approaches the first inner wall surface or the second inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction”. The applicant further argues with respect to Bennett that “None of these structures are a wick having holes, let alone holes having projecting portions. Therefore, if one skilled in the art were to combine the teachings of Wang and Bennett, at best, the resulting structure would be the isothermal plate of Wang where the inner surfaces of the two covers 20, 21 shown in Fig. 8 would include the grooves/fins of Bennett in place of the capillary structure 22 shown”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The primary reference Wang already teaches a wick support structure that comprises a plurality of holes. The limitation in question (“a peripheral edge of a hole”) is only concerned with the surface of the wick support structure that is adjacent to the holes. Bennett teaches a beneficial surface enhancement to form projecting portions from the surface to enhance heat transfer. Thus, when combined with the holes of Wang, the resulting combination would be a peripheral edge of a hole of Wang of the portion having holes includes a projecting portion (as taught by Bennett) that approaches the first inner wall surface or the second inner wall surface of the housing in the thickness direction. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights