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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Applicant’s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 7 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the two arm portions ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as two arm portions.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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 1-5, 7, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20220018609A1: cited by Applicant) in view Torresin (US20210125898A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a heat pipe assembly (see Figures 1, 2, and 6A-B) comprising:
a first heat pipe (100) having an inner wall surface (112 and 121), an outer wall surface (111 and 122), and at least one opening (131), wherein the inner wall surface (112 and 121) surrounds a first cavity (140), the outer wall surface (111 and 122) faces away from the inner wall surface (112 and 121: see Figures 1 and 2), and the at least one opening (131) is disposed on a longitudinal side of the first heat pipe (see Figure 1); and at least one second heat pipe (200 and/or inner pipes of 200A and 200B that are adjacent to 450 as shown in Figure 6A) having a second cavity (211) and a connecting port (port of 210) that is coupled to the second cavity (211), the at least one second heat pipe (200) is disposed on the first heat pipe (100) so that the second cavity (211) of the at least one second heat pipe (200) is connected to the first cavity (140) of the first heat pipe (100) via the connecting port (port of 210) and the at least one opening (131: see Figure 2).
CHEN does not teach wherein the first heat pipe is a U-shaped heat pipe that includes a flat middle section, and two bent sections respectively extending from opposite ends of the flat middle section.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for heat pipe assemblies to have various shapes and configurations including U-shaped, as evidenced by Torresin, see Torresin’s Figures 5-8, U-shaped heat pipe (Figure 5) that includes a flat middle section (horizontal flat section that is above 32), and two bent sections (the left and right outermost condensers 16) respectively extending from opposite ends of the flat middle section (see Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of CHEN’s first heat pipe to be U-shaped heat pipe that includes a flat middle section, and two bent sections respectively extending from opposite ends of the flat middle section, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 2, CHEN as modified further teaches wherein the flat section (horizontal flat section that is above 32 of Torresin) is a first heat conducting section of the first heat pipe (See Torresin’s Figure 5), the two arm portions (i.e. two bent sections: the left and right outermost condensers 16 of Torresin) are two second heat conducting sections of the first heat pipe (See Torresin’s Figure 5), the two second heat conducting sections are connected to opposite ends of the first heat conducting section respectively and protrude in the same direction (See Torresin’s Figure 5 and CHEN’s Figure 6B annotated by Examiner), and the at least one opening is located in the first heat conducting section of the first heat pipe (see in CHEN’s Figure 6B annotated by Examiner where the at least one second heat pipe is located in the first heat conducting section of 100, therefore, the at least one opening is located thereto) .
PNG
media_image1.png
624
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CHEN’s Figure 6B annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 3, CHEN as modified further teaches wherein each of the two second heat conducting sections is connected to the opposite ends of the first heat conducting section via a corresponding one of the two bent sections (see Torresin’s Figure 5 where the left and right outermost condensers 16 are connected to the opposite ends of the horizontal flat section that is above 32).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN further teaches wherein at least a portion of the first heat conducting section of the first heat pipe is a flat pipe (see CHEN’s Figure 6B annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN further teaches wherein the at least one second heat pipe (200) has a flanged structure (280) at the connecting port (port of 210: see Figure 2), and the flanged structure (280) is stacked on the outer wall surface of the first heat conducting section of the first heat pipe (see Figure 2 and cf. CHEN’s Figure 6B annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN further teaches wherein a portion of the at least one second heat pipe is inserted into the at least one opening of the first heat pipe (see in Figure 2 where a portion of 200, capillary structure portion 310, is inserted into 131 of 100).
Regarding claim 16, CHEN further teaches further comprising a first wick structure (150) and at least one second wick structure (300), wherein the first wick structure (150) is disposed in the first cavity (140) of the first heat pipe (100), and the at least one second wick structure (300) is disposed in the second cavity (211) of the at least one second heat pipe and connected to the first wick structure (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, CHEN further teaches wherein the at least one second heat pipe (200) is welded to the first heat pipe (see Figure 2 where 200 is welded to 100 via S).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US20220018609A1: cited by Applicant) in view Torresin (US20210125898A1: Previously cited) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view LIU (US20190049190A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, CHEN does not teach wherein the at least one second wick structure includes two crescent-shaped portions extending out of the connecting port.
However, LIU teaches a heat pipe (200f/200e: see Figures 16 and 17) having a wick structure (220f/220e) that includes two crescent-shaped portions (223) extending out of a connecting port (212a).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second heat pipe of CHEN with the at least one second wick structure includes two crescent-shaped portions extending out of the connecting port, as taught by LIU, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the heat transfer rate by increasing the capillary structure while having a vapor passage between the two crescent-shaped portions extending out of the connecting port.
Conclusion
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights