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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims: the various cross-sections, cross-sectional areas, and proportions thereof as recited throughout the claims. Note that while each of Figures 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 respectively show different cross-sections of the insulating tube and of the condensing tube, it is not clear how these are related to Figure 1 (i.e., Figure 1 does not show where the cross-sections shown in Figures 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 are taken, as required), nor is it clear which cross-sectional areas relate to the various proportions as recited throughout the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because, while each of Figures 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 respectively show different cross-sections of the insulating tube and of the condensing tube, it is not clear how these are related to Figure 1 (i.e., Figure 1 does not show where the cross-sections shown in Figures 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 are taken, as required), nor is it clear which cross-sectional areas relate to the various proportions as recited throughout the claims. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid terms which can be implied (i.e., “is provided”), because it contains grammatical and/or idiomatic informalities (i.e., “communicated with” should be replaced with “communicate with”; both occurrences of “is communicated with” should be replaced with “communicates with”), and because it fails to clearly summarize the salient features of the inventive apparatus (i.e., it is not at all clear what is meant by “ a cross-sectional area of the second wick structure has a second proportion greater than the first proportion in a cross-sectional area of the second channel”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “wick force” (i.e., appears to be an idiomatically informality and appears to correspond to the art term “wicking force”); “communicated with” appearing throughout the specification should be replaced with “communicates with” or with “communicate with” or with “in communication with”, as appropriate, for improved grammatical correctness; the terms “proportion” and “proportions” appear throughout the specification but, while it is clear that these terms are not used in accordance with their respective common meanings to refer to “ratio” or “ratios”, it is not at all clear what these terms are intended to refer to, even as used in context; and, the term “turning” in paragraph [0019] is also not used in an idiomatically correct manner and appears to be used to mean “corner” or “angle” or similar.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: ”communicated with” [claim 1, line 6] should be replaced with “in communication with” or similar; “is communicated with” [claim 1, line 9] should be replaced with “communicates with”; “in a same cross-section” [claim 1, line 9; claim 1, line 15] should be replaced with “in the same cross-section”; “a same side” [claim 6, line 2] should be replaced with “the same side”--all for improved grammatical and/or idiomatic correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “evaporation zone” in claim 1; “first wick structure” in claim 1; “second wick structure” in claim 1; “wick member” in claim 1 and in claim 10; “first insulating section” in claim 8; and, “second insulating section” in claim 8. The terms “zone”, “structure”, “member”, and “structure” are generic placeholders, whereas the terms “evaporation”, “wick”, and “insulating” constitute functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims, for example, recite the following limitations: “a cross-sectional area of the first wick structure has a first proportion in a cross-sectional area of the first channel” [claim 1, lines 10-11; “a cross-sectional area of the second wick structure has a second proportion in a cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the second proportion is greater than the first proportion” [claim 1, lines 15-17]; “the second proportion is greater than or equal to 30%” [claim 2, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 25%” [claim 3, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 15%” [claim 4, lines 1-2]; “the second proportion is less than or equal to 40%” [claim 5, lines 1-2]; and, “ a cross-sectional area of the wick member has a third proportion greater than the second proportion in the cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the third proportion is greater than or equal to 80%” [claim 10, lines 2-4].
In each of the aforementioned limitations, it is not at all clear what is intended to be encompassed by or to be meant by the term “proportion” as written because this term does not appear to be used in any idiomatically appropriate manner and because this term also has not been specifically defined or redefined or otherwise described or explained in the original disclosure. It is similarly not at all clear which particular ratios or comparative measurements are intended to be encompassed by the respective claimed percentages. Even the contexts in which the term “proportion” is used throughout the original disclosure do not help to alleviate the lack of clarity resulting from the use of this term.
Furthermore, the claim limitations “first insulating section” and “second insulating section” in claim 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any clear association between a particular structure corresponding to each of these sections as claimed.
As such, the written description requirement has not been met for the claimed invention(s).
Claims 1 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims, as noted previously, recite the following limitations: “a cross-sectional area of the first wick structure has a first proportion in a cross-sectional area of the first channel” [claim 1, lines 10-11; “a cross-sectional area of the second wick structure has a second proportion in a cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the second proportion is greater than the first proportion” [claim 1, lines 15-17]; “the second proportion is greater than or equal to 30%” [claim 2, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 25%” [claim 3, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 15%” [claim 4, lines 1-2]; “the second proportion is less than or equal to 40%” [claim 5, lines 1-2]; and, “ a cross-sectional area of the wick member has a third proportion greater than the second proportion in the cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the third proportion is greater than or equal to 80%” [claim 10, lines 2-4].
In each of the aforementioned limitations, it is not at all clear what is intended to be encompassed by or to be meant by the term “proportion” as written because this term does not appear to be used in any idiomatically appropriate manner and because this term also has not been specifically defined or redefined or otherwise described or explained in the original disclosure. It is similarly not at all clear which particular ratios or comparative measurements are intended to be encompassed by the respective claimed percentages. Even the contexts in which the term “proportion” is used throughout the original disclosure do not help to alleviate the lack of clarity resulting from the use of this term. Because the aforementioned limitations as written are so unclear as to be generally incomprehensible even at a very basic level, one of ordinary skill in the art (or even one extremely skilled in the art) would not be able to even make an educated guess as to how to make or use the instant invention(s) as claimed.
Therefore, as written, claims 1 through 10 do not meet the enablement requirement.
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.
Claims 1 through 10 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of idiomatically informal terms in the claims which render the claims less clear are: “adapted to an electronic device” [claim 1, line 1]; “communicated with” appearing throughout the claims; and, “a turning” [claim 8, line 3].
Other examples of idiomatically informal and generally incomprehensible limitations in the claims are the following: “a cross-sectional area of the first wick structure has a first proportion in a cross-sectional area of the first channel” [claim 1, lines 10-11; “a cross-sectional area of the second wick structure has a second proportion in a cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the second proportion is greater than the first proportion” [claim 1, lines 15-17]; “the second proportion is greater than or equal to 30%” [claim 2, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 25%” [claim 3, lines 1-2]; “the first proportion is less than or equal to 15%” [claim 4, lines 1-2]; “the second proportion is less than or equal to 40%” [claim 5, lines 1-2]; and, “ a cross-sectional area of the wick member has a third proportion greater than the second proportion in the cross-sectional area of the second channel, and the third proportion is greater than or equal to 80%” [claim 10, lines 2-4]. In each of the aforementioned limitations, it is not at all clear what is intended to be encompassed by or to be meant by the term “proportion” as written because this term, even in context, does not appear to be used in any idiomatically appropriate manner and because this term also has not been specifically defined or redefined. It is similarly not at all clear which particular ratios or comparative measurements are intended to be encompassed by the respective claimed percentages. The aforementioned limitations in the claims effectively render the claims generally incomprehensible with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim limitations “first insulating section” and “second insulating section” in claim 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide an association between a particular structure corresponding to each of these sections. Which structure(s) is/are intended to be encompassed by each of these limitations? In other words, no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The non-application of prior art to the claims should not be construed as an indication of allowability but rather as an indication of the degree to which the claims fail to meet the written description and enablement requirements as well as of the degree to which the claims are indefinite such that the patentability of the claims relative to the prior art of record cannot be determined at this time and any obviousness rejections of the claims based on prior art would involve undue speculation by the examiner as to the intended meaning of various limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
As an example of a similar heat dissipation module, Tomioka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,916,482 B2) shows a heat dissipation module including a fan disposed in a hollow zone, a heat source, a vapor chamber with plural chambers/sections/tubes, and a wick structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights