Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/717,165

COOLING FRAME FOR DIFFUSER

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Examiner
DUONG, THO V
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 1188 resolved
-3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1231
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1188 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cooling frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether applicant refers “the cooling frame of claim 13” to “the diffusion cooling frame”. 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 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2009/0201622A1). Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses (figures 3-5) a diffuser cooling frame comprising a body (56) having one or more fluid inlets (64a) and one or more fluid outlets (64b), wherein the body defines an opening (73); the one or more fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the one or more fluid outlets via one or more fluid lumens (58a,58b); and the one or more fluid lumens form one or more fluid passageways (58a,58b) around an outer perimeter of the body of the cooling frame. Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses (figure 4) that the one or more fluid lumens (58) comprise a first fluid lumens (58b) that extends about substantially all of an outer periphery of the opening (73); and a second fluid lumen (58a) that extends about substantially all of the outer periphery of the opening (73), wherein the second fluid lumen (58a) is disposed radially inward of the first fluid lumen (58b). Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses(figure 4) that the one or more fluid inlets (64a) and one or more fluid outlets (64b) are positioned on an upper surface of the cooling frame. Regarding claims 13 and 14, applicant is claiming a diffuser cooling frame. Therefore, limitation that the diffuser cooling frame is coupled with a diffuser or the diffuser cooling frame bonded to a diffuser via indium bonding, is just an intended use of the diffuser cooling frame. The diffuser that is coupled with the diffuser cooling frame is not part of the claimed diffuser cooling frame but an external device that can be cooled by the diffuser cooling frame. Brown discloses a cooling frame that has all of the limitations of the diffuser cooling frame as claimed. The Brown’s diffuser cooling frame has an upper surface and a lower surface that is capable of bonding by any mean such as indium bonding to a diffuser or any heat source that the diffuser cooling frame is intended to cool. For example, if applicant is claiming a table laptop and the table laptop is placed on a table. The table is not part of the table laptop. Any prior art’s laptop that discloses all the structural limitations of the table laptop would anticipate that table laptop. Regarding claim 16, Brown discloses (paragraph 29) that the body (56) of the cooling frame, the one or more fluid lumens (58) or both are constructed from an aluminum alloy. Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burn Mark (US 20100064717). Regarding claim 10, Burn Mark discloses (figure 2) a diffuser cooling frame comprising a body (12) having one or more fluid inlets (64) and one or more fluid outlets (66), wherein the body defines an opening (opening contains diffuser 40 ); the one or more fluid inlets are in fluid communication with the one or more fluid outlets via one or more fluid lumens (14); and the one or more fluid lumens form one or more fluid passageways (for refrigerant 64 to flows through) around an outer perimeter of the body of the cooling frame. Regarding claim 12, Burn Mark further discloses (figure 2) that the one or more fluid inlets (64) and one or more fluid outlets (66) are positioned on an upper surface of the cooling frame (the top flow path 14 with broken arrow shown, has an inlet and outlet located on the top portion of the cooling frame 2, which has an outer surface considered to be top surface). Regarding claims 13 and 14, applicant is claiming a diffuser cooling frame. Therefore, limitation that the diffuser cooling frame is coupled with a diffuser or the diffuser cooling frame bonded to a diffuser via indium bonding, is just an intended use of the diffuser cooling frame. The diffuser that is coupled with the diffuser cooling frame is not part of the claimed diffuser cooling frame but an external device that can be cooled by the diffuser cooling frame. Brown discloses all of the claimed limitations of the diffuser cooling frame. The Burn Mark’s diffuser cooling frame has an outer surface that is capable of bonding by any mean such as indium bonding to a diffuser or any heat source that the diffuser cooling frame is intended to cool. For example, if applicant is claiming a table laptop and the table laptop is placed on a table. The table is not part of the table laptop. Any prior art’s laptop that discloses all the structural limitations of the table laptop would anticipate that table laptop. Regarding claim 15, Burn Mark further discloses (figure 2) that the cooling frame (12) comprises two or more fluid lumens (14) that each connect one of the fluid inlets to a respective one of the fluid outlets (64,66), wherein a first fluid path defined by a first fluid lumen (upper 14) of the two or more fluid lumens extends clockwise around the body of the cooling frame, and a second fluid path (lower than the upper 14) defined by a second fluid lumen of the two or more fluid lumens extends counter-clockwise around the body of the cooling frame. Regarding the term “clockwise” and “counter-clockwise”, an upper fluid path is considered to extend clockwise from outlet (66) to inlet (64) and a second fluid path (below the upper fluid path) is considered to extend counter clockwise from inlet (64) to outlet (66). The examiner must interpret the limitation as broadly as it reasonably allows. Therefore, the examiner does not interpret the “clockwise” and “counter-clockwise” as directions of the fluid flow, but a physical path which has two end points. The fluid flow path can be clockwise if traced from point 66 to point 64 or counter-clockwise if traced from point 64 to point 66 as shown in figure 2. Regarding claim 16, Burn Mark discloses (paragraph 84) that the body (12) of the cooling frame, the one or more fluid lumens (14) or both are constructed from an aluminum alloy. .Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rule (US 20050274499A1) discloses a container with temperature regulator. Hongo (US 2002/0046807A1) discloses a plasma process apparatus. Kushch et al. (US 6,213,757B1) discloses a matrix combustion. Matsugi et al. (US 5,667,758A) discloses a processing vessel. Jordan et al. (US 5,150,831) discloses a reactor vessel. Engelhardt Rolf (US 4,556,104A) discloses a heat exchanger. C. K. Mader (US 2,823,652) discloses a helical coil heater. Yang et al. (US 20140311411A1) discloses a showerhead having cooling system. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601550
GROOVED VAPOR CHAMBER CAPILLARY REFLOW STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601548
Systems and Methods for Thermal Management Using Separable Heat Pipes and Methods of Manufacture Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581620
EXIT CHANNEL CONFIGURATION FOR MEMS-BASED ACTUATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12535278
HEAT DISSIPATION DEVICE OF HEAT PIPE COMBINED WITH VAPOR CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529525
HEAT DIFFUSION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+17.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1188 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month