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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida US 11402158 B2.
Re claim 1, Machida teach a case (152, 153) for an electronic device, comprising an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the outer surface comprises a plurality of first blind holes (annotated fig), the inner surface comprises a plurality of second blind holes (annotated fig) corresponding to the first blind holes, and each of the first blind holes and the corresponding second blind hole are three-dimensionally overlapped to form a through region (region with holes) extending through the case (fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Machida teach wherein the first blind holes are arranged in an array on the outer surface, and the second blind holes are arranged in an array on the inner surface (fig 11).
2. The case for an electronic device according to claim 1,
Re claim 8, Machida teach wherein the case comprises a thickness along a thickness direction (thickness of 152 ), each of the first blind holes comprises a first depth along the thickness direction, each of the second blind holes comprises a second depth along the thickness direction, and a sum of the first depth and the second depth is greater than the thickness (fig 11).
Re claim 9, Machida teach wherein the case comprises a thickness direction, each of the first blind holes and each of the corresponding second blind holes are overlapped along the thickness direction, and projection patterns of each of the first blind holes and each of the corresponding second blind holes on the outer surface are partially overlapped (figs 11, figs 6).
Re claim 10, Machida teach wherein each of the first blind holes and the each of the corresponding second blind holes have an overlapped depth along the thickness direction (figs 11, figs 6).
Re claim 11, Machida teach wherein each of the second blind holes comprises a tapered bottom surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art fail to teach “case” limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The term “case” is in the preamble which is then defined by the structure in the body of the claim, and the prior art teach all the structure in the claim body which serves as a case for a working fluid in a heat removal loop. The structure is internal to the most outer layer portion of the housing containing the heat pipe internal structure and therefore the blind holes of the prior art are considered ot be related to “the inner surface of the case”.
The applicant argues that the loop heat pipe is not an electrical device and thus the prior art fail to teach the claim limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees. No electrical device is positively recited in the claim body, yet is an intended use for the case in the preamble. The prior art also includes the intended use in an electronic device “Heat pipes are known as devices for cooling a heat generation component such as a CPU” (col 1).
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., “electrical device case”) 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 argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights