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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Section)][AltContent: textbox (Condensation Section)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
39
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Second End Part)][AltContent: textbox (Heat Insulation Section)][AltContent: textbox (First End Part)]
Liu Figure 2
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a heat pipe (1) comprising:
a pipe body (shown in figure 2) comprising:
a sealed cavity (13) comprising, a capillary structure (2) and a heat transfer medium (3);
a main pipe section comprising a heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the main pipe section is sequentially divided, in a length direction, into an evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a left portion) comprising a first end part (shown in annotated figure 2 containing the bulged space (14)), a heat insulation section (shown in annotated figure 2), and a condensation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a right portion), and wherein the capillary structure is located in the heat exchange cavity (“At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13); and
a first additional pipe section (14) comprising a first additional cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the first additional pipe section is connected to the first end part (shown in annotated figure 2), wherein the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed (shown in figure 2) and the first additional pipe section is located below a gravity direction (shown in figure 2), wherein
the portion is all or a part of the heat transfer medium (shown in figure 2, wherein the working fluid is shown pooling in the bulged space (14)), and wherein
the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on
Regarding limitations “evaporation section”, “condensation section”, “the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed” and “the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of sections of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu further discloses first additional cavity (14) is further configured to accommodate, when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section (14) is located below the gravity direction, all heat transfer media that fail to be maintained inside the capillary structure (shown in figure 2).
Regarding limitations “when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction, all heat transfer media that fail to be maintained inside the capillary structure” recited in Claim 2, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, Liu further discloses the pipe body further comprises a second additional pipe section (14, “both of two ends of the heat pipe can be formed with the bulged spaces 14”, ¶15) comprising a second additional cavity (cavity of the bulged section (14) is shown in figure 2), wherein condensation section comprises a second end part connected to the second additional pipe section (shown in figure 2 and ¶15, wherein the second bulged section (14) is situated on both ends of the heat pipe), and wherein the second additional cavity is configured to accommodate, when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the second additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction, the portion of the heat transfer medium (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) on either end of the heat pipe functions the same).
Regarding limitations “condensation” recited in Claim 3, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu further discloses first cross-sectional area of the first additional cavity (14) is greater than a second cross-sectional area of the heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) has a greater cross-sectional area when compared to the middle portion of the heat pipe).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu further discloses the capillary structure extends into the first additional cavity (“The tubular body 1 has a first end 11 and a second end 12 and an airtight chamber 13. At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu further discloses the capillary structure is a wick (“The capillary structure layer 2 is selected from a group consisting of sintered powders, channels, woven meshes and any combination thereof”, ¶13), and wherein the wick is attached to an inner wall of the pipe body (shown in figure 2).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 above in view of Wang (US PG Pub. 2010/0263835A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu fails to disclose the first additional pipe section is bent towards one side relative to the evaporation section to form an included angle between the first additional pipe section and the evaporation section.
Wang, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches the first additional pipe section (400b) is bent (shown in figure 4) towards one side relative to the evaporation section (400a) to form an included angle between the first additional pipe section (400b) and the evaporation section (shown in figure 4).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a line shaped heat pipe with a u-shaped heat pipe; further the prior art to Wang teaches a u-shaped heat pipe is known for cooling electronic components. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having a u-shaped heat pipe for cooling electronic device, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Wang there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a u-shaped heat pipe in order to conform to predetermined locations of heat generating components or electronic layout. Alternately, Wang teaches that a line shaped heat pipe and a u-shaped heat pipe are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two heat pipe shaped were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a u-shaped heat pipe for a line shaped heat pipe.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 above in view of Lin et al. (Translation of CN202221260U), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Section)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (End Pipe Section)][AltContent: textbox (Transition Pipe Section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
232
80
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu Figure 2
Regarding Claim 7, Liu further discloses the first additional pipe section (14) comprises an end pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) and a transition pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above), wherein the end pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) is connected to the evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) through the transition pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above), wherein the evaporation section is a flat pipe (shown in figure 2, see also ¶13). Liu fails to disclose the end pipe section is a circular pipe.
Lin, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches an evaporation section is a flat pipe and the end pipe section is a circular pipe (“an evaporation space 101 can be flat while the condensation space 102, 103 is circular”, ¶41).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an end pipe section being circular with an end pipe section being flat; further the prior art to Lin teaches that it is old and well known to transfer from a flat shape to a circular shape or vice versa in a heat pipe for collecting and dissipating heat. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having a circular end pipe section, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Lin there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a circular end pipe since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6 and 9 above in view of Chi et al. (Translation of CN106887419B), hereinafter referred to as Chi.
Regarding Claim 8, Liu fails to disclose the heat insulation section is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation.
Chi, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a heat insulation section (30) is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the heat insulation section being a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation, as taught by Chi, the motivation being “said connecting part is stressed can be deformed such that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements, and realize the uniform temperature of the heating element between”.
Claims 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Chi et al. (Translation of CN106887419B) and in further view of Kawabata et al. (Translation of JPH10122775A), hereinafter referred to as Liu, Chi and Kawabata, respectively.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses a heat dissipation device comprising:
a heat pipe (1) comprising a pipe body (shown in figure 2), wherein the pipe body comprises: a sealed cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the sealed cavity comprises a capillary structure (2) and a heat transfer medium (3);
a main pipe section comprising a heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the main pipe section is sequentially divided, in a length direction, into an evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a left portion), a heat insulation section (shown in annotated figure 2), and a condensation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a right portion), wherein the evaporation section comprises a first end part (shown in annotated figure 2 containing the bulged space (14)), and wherein the capillary structure (2) is located in the heat exchange cavity (“At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13); and
a first additional pipe section (14) comprising a first additional cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the first additional pipe section is connected to the first end part (shown in annotated figure 2), wherein the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed (shown in figure 2) and the first additional pipe section is located below a gravity direction (shown in figure 2), wherein
the portion is all or a part of the heat transfer medium (shown in figure 2, wherein the working fluid is shown pooling in the bulged space (14)).
Liu fails to disclose a circuit board, a heat emitter disposed on the circuit board; and a heat dissipator configured to dissipate heat for the heat emitter, wherein the heat dissipator comprises: a first heat sink and a second heat sink and an evaporation section connected to the first heat sink and a condensation section connected to the second heat sink.
Chi, also drawn to a heat pipe for cooling a heat generating device teaches a circuit board (“several radiating the heating element is on the single board, which can realize uniform temperature, and can adapt to different height of the heating element”);
a heat emitter (“chip”, “The heating element can be of the chip”) disposed on the circuit board (“several radiating the heating element is on the single board, which can realize uniform temperature, and can adapt to different height of the heating element”); and
a heat dissipator configured to dissipate heat for the heat emitter (shown in figure 1), wherein the heat dissipator comprises:
a first heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the left side); a second heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the right side) and an evaporation section (10) connected to the first heat sink (shown in figure 5) and a condensation section (20) connected to the second heat sink (shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the above limitations, as taught by Chi, the motivation being to cool multiple heat generating components at different heights with additional surface area, thereby increasing the cooling capacity and reducing cool down time.
Liu fails to disclose the first additional pipe section is spaced apart from and is not in contact with the first heat sink and the second heat sink, and wherein the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device.
Kawabata, also drawn to a heat dissipation device with an expanded portion, teaches a first additional pipe section (52) is spaced apart (shown in figure 3) from and is not in contact with a first heat sink (91) and a second heat sink (92), and wherein the first additional pipe section (52) is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device (shown in figure 3, wherein the gas reservoir (52) is not in contact with a heat generating component) when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device (8, shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the above limitations, as taught by Kawabata, the motivation being “the variable conductance heat pipe according to the present invention has excellent thermal diode characteristics and is suitable for a heat radiation mechanism for controlling a predetermined temperature range”.
Regarding limitations “evaporation section”, “condensation section”, “the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed” recited in Claim 10, which are directed to the intended use of sections of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Liu further teaches the first heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the left side as previously taught by Chi in the rejection of Claim 10) comprises a first substrate (top plate of the first vapor chamber (11) as shown in figure 5 of Chi) and a first fin (shown in figure 1), wherein the first fin is disposed on the first substrate (shown in figures 1 and 5), wherein the evaporation section (bottom plate of the first vapor chamber (11) containing said vapor chamber) is attached to the first substrate (shown in figure 5); and, wherein the second heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the right side as previously taught by Chi in the rejection of Claim 10) comprises a second substrate (top plate of the second vapor chamber (21) as shown in figure 5 of Chi) and a second fin (shown in figure 1), wherein the second fin is disposed on the second substrate (shown in figures 1 and 5), and wherein the condensation section is attached to the second substrate (bottom plate of the second vapor chamber (21) containing said vapor chamber).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Liu further teaches a plurality of heat emitting components (“said connecting part is stressed can be deformed such that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements”, see abstract of Chi), wherein the first heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the left side as previously taught by Chi in the rejection of Claim 10) is connected to a first set of the heat emitting components of the plurality of heat emitting components (“that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements”, see abstract), and wherein the second heat sink (40, shown in figure 1 as being positioned on the right side) and an evaporation section (bottom plate of the first vapor chamber (11) containing said vapor chamber) is connected to a second of the heat emitting components of the plurality of heat emitting components (“that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements”, see abstract).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a first set and a second set of heat emitting components, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Liu further teaches a plurality of heat dissipators (40, as previously taught by Chi in the rejection of Claim 10) and a plurality of heat emitting components (“that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements”, see abstract), wherein the plurality of heat dissipators are configured to dissipate heat for the plurality of heat emitting components (shown in figure 1 of Chi).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Liu further teaches when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section (14 of Liu) is located below the gravity direction, the first additional cavity is further configured to accommodate all heat transfer media that fail to be maintained inside the capillary structure (shown in figure 2 of Liu, wherein the bulged space (14) is capable of retaining working fluid when the heat pipe is situated in a vertical direction) .
Regarding limitations “when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction, the first additional cavity is further configured to accommodate all heat transfer media that fail to be maintained inside the capillary structure” recited in Claim 15, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Liu further teaches the pipe body further comprises a second additional pipe section (14, “both of two ends of the heat pipe can be formed with the bulged spaces 14”, ¶15), wherein the condensation section comprises a second end part connected to the second additional pipe section (shown in figure 2 and ¶15, wherein the second bulged section (14) is situated on both ends of the heat pipe), and wherein the second additional pipe section comprises a second additional cavity configured to accommodate the portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the second additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) on either end of the heat pipe functions the same).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Liu further teaches a first cross-sectional area of the first additional cavity (14) is greater than a second cross- sectional area of the heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) has a greater cross-sectional area when compared to the middle portion of the heat pipe).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Liu further teaches the capillary structure extends into the first additional cavity (“The tubular body 1 has a first end 11 and a second end 12 and an airtight chamber 13. At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Chi et al. (Translation of CN106887419B) and in view of Kawabata et al. (Translation of JPH10122775A) as applied in Claims 10-12, 14-17 and 19 above and in further view of Chen (US PG Pub. 2013/0037241A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 13, Liu fails to disclose the heat dissipation device further comprises a heat dissipation fan configured to dissipate heat for the heat dissipator.
Chen, also drawn to a heat pipe device, teaches a heat dissipation fan (6) configured to dissipate heat for the heat dissipator (shown in figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Liu with a heat dissipation fan configured to dissipate heat for the heat dissipator, as taught by Chen, the motivation being to increase the rate of heat dissipation through forced convection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Kawabata et al. (Translation of JPH10122775A).
Regarding Claim 20, Liu discloses a heat dissipation device, comprising:
a heat pipe (1) comprising:
a pipe body (shown in figure 2), wherein the pipe body comprises:
a sealed cavity (13), wherein the sealed cavity comprises a capillary structure (2) and a heat transfer medium (3) disposed in the sealed cavity (shown in figure 2);
a main pipe section comprising a heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the main pipe section is sequentially divided, in a length direction, into an evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a left portion) comprising a first end part (shown in annotated figure 2 containing the bulged space (14)), a heat insulation section (shown in annotated figure 2), and a condensation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a right portion), and wherein the capillary structure is located in the heat exchange cavity (“At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13); wherein
a first additional pipe section (14) comprising a first additional cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the first additional pipe section is connected to the first end part (shown in annotated figure 2), wherein the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate all or a part of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed (shown in figure 2) and the first additional pipe section is located below a gravity direction (shown in figure 2).
Liu fails to disclose a heat emitter; a heat dissipator; the evaporation section is connected to the heat emitter, and wherein the heat dissipator is configured to dissipate heat for the condensation section; the first additional pipe section is not in contact with the heat emitter and wherein the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device.
Kawabata, also drawn to a heat dissipation device with an expanded portion, teaches a heat emitter (8); a heat dissipator (92); the evaporation section (portion of the heat pipe (11) within the reaction vessel (8)) is connected to the heat emitter (shown in figure 3), and wherein the heat dissipator is configured to dissipate heat for the condensation section (shown in figure 3), a first additional pipe section (52) is not in contact with the heat emitter and wherein the first additional pipe section (52) is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device (shown in figure 3, wherein the gas reservoir (52) is not in contact with a heat generating component) when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device (8, shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the above limitations, as taught by Kawabata, the motivation being “the variable conductance heat pipe according to the present invention has excellent thermal diode characteristics and is suitable for a heat radiation mechanism for controlling a predetermined temperature range”.
Regarding limitations “evaporation section”, “condensation section”, “the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed” and “the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device” recited in Claim 20, which are directed to the intended use of sections of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763