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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the splitting channel comprises a splitting center and a plurality of splitting branches extending from the splitting center” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the splitting branches extend from the drop shaped protrusion or rather does the splitting center refer to the drop shaped protrusion or the space from which the splitting branches extend? The original disclosure denotes the splitting center (121) as a drop shaped protrusion that the flow encounters, however the splitting branches do not extend from the drop shaped protrusion, the splitting branches extend from a space in which the drop shaped protrusion exists. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the splitting channel comprises a splitting center and a plurality of splitting branches extending from the splitting center” will be interpreted as – the splitting channel comprises a splitting center and a plurality of splitting branches extending from a space containing the splitting center --.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “wherein the splitting center is an annular splitting pipe surrounded in a drop shape” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what is the structure of the splitting center. The splitting center within the original disclosure appears to be a drop shaped protrusion (shown in figure 3). For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “wherein the splitting center is an annular splitting pipe surrounded in a drop shape” will be interpreted as – wherein the splitting center is a drop shaped splitting pipe --.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosales et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0257589A1) hereinafter referred to as Rosales.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top Area)][AltContent: textbox (Condensation
Channel)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Evaporation
Channel)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Far Heat Source Side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
250
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Liquid Return Channel)]
[AltContent: textbox (Liquid Replenishment Channel)]
Rosales Figure 26
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Splitting Center)][AltContent: textbox (Splitting Channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
288
151
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rosales Figure 26
Regarding Claim 1, Rosales discloses a two-phase heat dissipation fin, comprising:
a heat dissipation tooth plate (shown in figure 26), having a near heat source side (shown in figure 26, being the right side) and a far heat source side (shown in annotated figure 26);
a circumferential loop channel (shown in figure 26, designated by arrows) arranged on the heat dissipation tooth plate (shown in figure 26, allowing the fluid to circulate to and from the heat source), wherein the circumferential loop channel is filled with a phase-change working medium (see abstract), and comprises
an evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 26) arranged on the near heat source side (shown in annotated figure 26); and
a splitting channel (“the evaporation portion walls 2650 are non-orthogonal evaporation portion walls 2650. In some implementations, the one or more evaporation portion walls 2650 includes portions that are straight, angled, slanted, orthogonal, non-orthogonal, offset and/or staggered”, ¶146, shown in annotated figure 26), extending obliquely upwards from a lower portion of the evaporation channel to an upper portion of the evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 26, being the channels between the evaporation portion walls (2650)).
Regarding Claim 2, Rosales further discloses the evaporation channel is a vertical channel gradually widening from bottom to top (shown in annotated figure 26, wherein the “Inner Separation Wall” creates a widening affect within the annotated “Evaporation Channel”).
Regarding Claim 3, Rosales further discloses the circumferential loop channel further comprises a condensation channel arranged on the far heat source side, and a volume of the condensation channel accounts for at least half of a total volume of the circumferential loop channel (shown in annotated figure 26, “Condensation Channel”).
Regarding Claim 4, Rosales further discloses the circumferential loop channel further comprises a liquid return channel (shown in annotated figure 26) and a liquid replenishment channel (shown in annotated figure 26), the liquid return channel is arranged on the far heat source side and is located below the condensation channel (shown in annotated figure 26), and
the liquid replenishment channel is arranged at a bottom portion of the heat dissipation tooth plate (shown in annotated figure 26) and is located between the liquid return channel and the evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 26); and
the evaporation channel, the condensation channel, the liquid return channel, and the liquid replenishment channel are connected in sequence to form the circumferential loop channel (shown in annotated figure 26).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Rosales further discloses a splitting center (shown in annotated figure 26) and a plurality of splitting branches extending from the splitting center (shown in annotated figure 26, wherein a right channel and a left channel are situated on either side of the annotated “Splitting Center” and extend from a space containing the annotated “Splitting Center”).
Regarding Claim 7, Rosales further discloses the splitting branches comprise a first splitting branch (shown in annotated figure 26, being the right channel relative to the annotated “Splitting Center”) and a second splitting branch (shown in annotated figure 26, being the left channel relative to the annotated “Splitting Center”), the first splitting branch is connected to the lower portion of the evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 26), and the second splitting branch is connected to the upper portion of the evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 26).
Regarding Claim 8, Rosales further discloses the splitting center is a one-way flow valve structure configured to separate a gas-phase working medium and a liquid- phase working medium in the splitting branches (see intended use analysis below, wherein the structural limitations of the claims are taught by Rosales).
Regarding limitations “the splitting center is a one-way flow valve structure configured to separate a gas-phase working medium and a liquid- phase working medium in the splitting branches” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to an intended use, 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 10, Rosales further discloses a liquid storage structure (2570), arranged in the upper portion of the evaporation channel (shown in figure 26, wherein the ribs (2570) are capable of storing working fluid on an outer surface).
Regarding Claim 13, Rosales further discloses a top area of the heat dissipation tooth plate on the near heat source side is a solid press-fit (see product by process analysis below) structure (shown in annotated figure 26).
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 13, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 13, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “press-fit” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 14, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Rosales further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 23, including the heat dissipating device, the TIM and integrated device), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 7).
Claims 1, 6-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al. (Translation of CN212458058U) hereinafter referred to as Tong.
[AltContent: textbox (Splitting Center)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Splitting Channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
622
205
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Loop Channel)]
Tong Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Tong discloses a two-phase heat dissipation fin, comprising:
a heat dissipation tooth plate (1), having a near heat source side (shown in figure 1, being the left side) and a far heat source side (shown in figure 1, being the right side);
a circumferential loop channel arranged on the heat dissipation tooth plate (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the circumferential loop channel is filled with a phase-change working medium (“The heat superconducting technology is that the heat transfer working substance 4 is filled in the sealed micro-channel, and the phase change heat transfer technology of the heat superconducting heat transfer is realized by the evaporation or condensation phase change of the heat transfer working medium”), and comprises
an evaporation channel (shown in annotated figure 3) arranged on the near heat source side (shown in annotated figure 3); and
a splitting channel (shown in annotated figure 3, being the fluid passages linking the front side fluid passage to the rear side fluid passage), extending obliquely upwards from a lower portion of the evaporation channel to a position beyond the evaporation channel (shown in figure 3, being the rear side fluid channel).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Tong further discloses the splitting channel comprises a splitting center (shown in annotated figure 3) and a plurality of splitting branches extending from the splitting center (shown in annotated figure 3, being the channels situated on the top and bottom of the annotated “Splitting Center”).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Tong further discloses the splitting branches comprise a first splitting branch (shown in annotated figure 3, being the bottom channel relative to the annotated “Splitting Center”) and a second splitting branch (shown in annotated figure 3, being the top channel relative to the annotated “Splitting Center”), the first splitting branch is connected to the lower portion of the evaporation channel (shown in figure 3, wherein the bottom channel is fluidly connected to a lower portion of the evaporation channel), and the second splitting branch is connected to the position beyond the evaporation channel (shown in figure 3, wherein the top channel is fluidly connected to the rear side fluid channel).
Regarding Claim 8, Tong further discloses the splitting center is a one-way flow valve structure configured to separate a gas-phase working medium and a liquid- phase working medium in the splitting branches (see intended use analysis below, wherein the structural limitations of the claims are taught by Tong).
Regarding limitations “the splitting center is a one-way flow valve structure configured to separate a gas-phase working medium and a liquid- phase working medium in the splitting branches” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to an intended use, 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 19, Tong further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 6), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Tong further discloses a heat sink (shown in figure 6), comprising the two-phase heat dissipation fin of claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 7).
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 Rosales et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0257589A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 above and in further view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0215437A1), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding Claim 5, Rosales fails to disclose a liquid absorbing wick, vertically arranged on a side wall of the evaporation channel.
Lin, also drawn to a heat sink with a circulation loop for a working fluid, teaches a liquid absorbing wick, vertically arranged on a side wall of the evaporation channel (“axial or circumferential wick structures, having triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, reentrant, etc. cross-sectional geometries, may be formed on inner surfaces of one or more of the condensation channel, the connecting channel, the evaporation channel, and the network of channels. The wick structure may be used to facilitate the flow of condensed fluid by capillary force back to the evaporation surface, keeping the evaporation surface wet for large heat fluxes”, ¶84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rosales with a liquid absorbing wick, vertically arranged on a side wall of the evaporation channel, as taught by Lin, the motivation being that the “wick structure is used to facilitate the flow of condensed fluid by capillary force back to the evaporation surface, keeping the evaporation surface wet for large heat fluxes”, ¶114).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosales et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0257589A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 above and in further view of ABB (Translation of DE202009004630U1), hereinafter referred to as ABB.
Regarding Claim 10, in addition to Rosales, ABB also drawn to a heat sink having a fluid circulation loop, teaches a liquid storage structure (5), arranged in the upper portion of the evaporation channel (2, 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 Rosales with a liquid storage structure, arranged in the upper portion of the evaporation channel, as taught by ABB, the motivation being that the “Cavities 5 or slots are formed in the wall 3, which open onto the evaporation chamber 2 and form vapor pockets that enhance cooling”, ¶15).
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Rosales further teaches the liquid storage structure (5, as previously taught by ABB in the rejection of Claim 10) is a stepped platform inclined toward a direction of gravity (shown in figure 1, wherein the slits (5) are angled from the right to the left) from the far heat source side to the near heat source side (shown in figure 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosales et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0257589A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 above and in further view of Hoffman et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0040726A1), hereinafter referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 12, Rosales fails to disclose a liquid absorbing wick, arranged on the liquid storage structure.
Hoffman, also drawn to a vapor chamber for evaporating and condensing a working fluids, teaches a liquid absorbing wick, arranged on the liquid storage structure (“these ribs 17 may be of any geometric format and have attributes of any of the other structural strengthening bodies previously described (e.g. having a wick structure external or internal to the ribs 17, the ribs 17 being themselves made of a porous material, or having a secondary material incorporated in the rib 17 such as by cladding to impart additional strength)”, ¶102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rosales with a liquid absorbing wick arranged on the liquid storage structure, as taught by Hoffman, the motivation being that wicks are well known to increase the capillary pumping capability within a heat pipe while also preventing dry out or hot spots.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosales et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0257589A1) as applied in Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 13-20 above in view of ABB (Translation of DE202009004630U1) as applied in Claims 10-11 above and in further view of Hoffman et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0040726A1), hereinafter referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 12, Rosales fails to disclose a liquid absorbing wick, arranged on the liquid storage structure.
Hoffman, also drawn to a vapor chamber for evaporating and condensing a working fluids, teaches a liquid absorbing wick, arranged on the liquid storage structure (“these ribs 17 may be of any geometric format and have attributes of any of the other structural strengthening bodies previously described (e.g. having a wick structure external or internal to the ribs 17, the ribs 17 being themselves made of a porous material, or having a secondary material incorporated in the rib 17 such as by cladding to impart additional strength)”, ¶102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rosales with a liquid absorbing wick arranged on the liquid storage structure, as taught by Hoffman, the motivation being that wicks are well known to increase the capillary pumping capability within a heat pipe while also preventing dry out or hot spots.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (Translation of CN212458058U) as applied in Claims 1, 6-8 and 19-20 above and in further view of Sun et al. (Translation of CN112930091A), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Tong fails to disclose the splitting center is an annular splitting pipe surrounded in a drop shape.
Sun, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a splitting center (101) is an annular splitting pipe surrounded in a drop shape (shown in figure 7, Sun further states, “to reduce the gas-liquid fluid flowing around the welding area 101 of the turbulent flow resistance, improving the range of the cooling liquid diffusion and the efficiency of the circulation… the outer contour line of the welding area 101 is a curve, the welding area 101 can be set as the shape of the curve of the outer contour line is smooth, for example: round, oval, water drop shape…ensuring the circulation flow passage 100 in the gas liquid fluid circulation flow uniformity” ).
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 splitting center of Tong with being an annular splitting pipe surrounded in a drop shape, as taught by Sun, the motivation being that a drop shape is known to reduce flow resistance and ensuring uniform circulation).
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