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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 1-7 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-15 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.
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.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng et al. TW I733623B in view of Chen et al. (US 20060081360A1). Horng discloses (figures 4-6) a heating element cooling structure comprising a lower plate (1); an upper plate (2) configured to be bonded to an inner surface of the lower plate to form an internal space (S); a column unit (24) formed to be concave (25) on an outer surface of the upper plate (2) and protrude to an inner surface of the upper plate; and a wick unit (P1) formed at one or more of the inner surface of the upper plate and the inner surface of the lower plate and configured to move a refrigerant. Regarding claims 8 and 11, Horng does not disclose that the wick unit comprises scratches or scars formed in the inner surface of the upper plate or/and (claim 11) the inner surface of the lower plate by a laser irradiation to a predetermined depth. Chen discloses (figures 2-4 and paragraph 24) a heating cooling structure that has a wick unit (23) comprises scratches or scars (miniatures grooves 23) formed in the inner surface of the upper plate and the inner surface of the lower plate by a laser to a predetermined depth (grooves have depth and as shown in figure 3B) for a purpose of improving the capillary force of the wick structure (paragraph 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Chen’s teaching in Horng’s device for a purpose of improving the capillary force of the wick structure. Regarding the term “scratch or scar”, it is reminded that the examiner must interpret the limitation as broadly as it reasonably allows. Therefore, the term” scratch or scar” is interpreted as it has a groove structures with a predetermined depth.
Regarding the limitation of “by a laser irradiation”, the method of forming device is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the scar or scratch in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from the scar or scratch of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior scar or scratch was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 9, Horng further discloses (figure 5) that the column unit (24) is bonded to the inner surface of the lower plate. (paragraph 43)
Regarding claim 10, Horng further discloses (figures 4-5) that the column unit (24) is formed integrally with the upper plate (2).
Regarding claim 12, Horng further discloses that the upper plate and the lower plate are bonded using a laser. (paragraph 43)
Regarding claim 13, Horng further discloses that an outer surface of the lower plate is disposed to be in contact with an electronic device H. (paragraph 41)
Regarding claim 14, Horng further discloses (figure 6) that that the wick unit (P1) is configured to move the refrigerant using capillary.
Regarding claim 15, Horng further discloses that the column unit (24) is bonded to the inner surface of the lower plate (1) using laser welding. (paragraph 43)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (KR 20200056917A) discloses scratch or scar wick.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights