DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an inner wall having”. The limitation “having” appears to be a typographical or grammatical error. The limitation has been interpreted as “an inner wall”.
The Examiner notes that the “having” appears throughout the claims and should be removed.
Claim 11 recites “then inner wall”, this appears to be a typographical error that should read “the inner wall”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hafuka (U.S. 2007/0019419)
Regarding claim 1, Hafuka teaches an electronic device (see abstract) having a carrier element ( see fig. 7a, combination of 24 and 9) having an inner wall (inner side and inner half of 25) and an outer wall (outer side 9 and outer half of 25); and
at least one heat- producing electronic component (LED 12) arranged on the inner wall of the carrier (see fig. 2),
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the carrier element (24) are connected to form a steam chamber (heat pipe 25, see p. 0084, evaporated water in pipe member) between the inner wall and the outer wall that is partially filled with a liquid to distribute heat produced by the at least one heat producing electronic component (see p. 0084).
The Examiner notes that Hafuka specifically teaches that 25 is a hollow structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hafuka teaches that the heat-producing electronic component is thermally connected to the carrier element (see p. 0084).
Regarding claim 3, Hafuka teaches that the electronic device (see p. 0002) is a display device.
Regarding claim 4, Hafuka teaches that the heat-producing electronic component is a light-emitting diode (see p. 0037) of a backlight (backlight unit 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hafuka teaches that the carrier element (24) is configured as a housing ( see fig. 1, 2 houses LED and substrate).
Regarding claim 6, Hafuka teaches that an outer wall (26, see fig. 8) of the carrier element (24) is configured as a heat sink (see p. 0068, connected to heat sinks 26).
Regarding claim 7, Hafuka teaches that the outer wall (26) has cooling fins (fins 26a).
Regarding claim 8, Hafuka does not teach that the carrier element is manufactured by internal-pressure injection molding forming the inner wall and the outer wall in one piece.
The limitation “manufacture by internal-pressure injection molding” has been considered but not given patentable weight because this is a product by process limitation. Even 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 , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP. 2113
The carrier element is assembled together into a single piece and therefore reads on the claims.
Internal pressure injection molding does not result in any structural differences between the current application and the prior art, and therefore has no patentable weight. The Examiner also finds that such an application is well known in the art and obvious, see alternative 103 rejection of claim 8 below.
Regarding claim 9, Hafuka teaches that the steam chamber (interior of 25) is lined with a porous material (see p. 0084).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2007/0107875).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic device (see abstract) having a carrier element ( 10) having an inner wall (see fig. 1) and an outer wall; and
at least one heat- producing electronic component (20) arranged on the inner wall of the carrier (see fig. 1),
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the carrier element are connected to form a steam chamber (see p. 0007) between the inner wall and the outer wall that is partially filled with a liquid to distribute heat produced by the at least one heat producing electronic component (fluid).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that the heat-producing electronic component is thermally connected to the carrier element (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that the electronic device (see p. 0001) is a display device (notebook or pda).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the carrier element is configured as a housing ( houses fluid and 20 within PDA).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that an outer wall of the carrier element is configured as a heat sink.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that the outer wall has cooling fins (fins 30).
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not teach that the carrier element is manufactured by internal-pressure injection molding forming the inner wall and the outer wall in one piece (one piece structure).
The limitation “manufacture by internal-pressure injection molding” has been considered but not given patentable weight because this is a product by process limitation. Even 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 , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP. 2113
The carrier element is assembled together into a single piece and therefore reads on the claims.
Internal pressure injection molding does not result in any structural differences between the current application and the prior art, and therefore has no patentable weight. The Examiner also finds that such an application is well known in the art and obvious, see alternative 103 rejection of claim 8 below.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches that the steam chamber is lined with a porous material (wick material 60).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a means of transportation (PDA, transports electronic structures) comprising an electronic device (PDA) comprising:
a carrier element having an inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see annotated figure below); and
at least one heat producing electronic component arranged on the inner wall of the carrier,
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the carrier element are connected to form a steam chamber between the inner wall and the outer wall that is partially filled with a liquid and is designed to distribute heat produced by the at least one heat producing electronic component.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear if incorporation into transportation means requires any structure or qualities of the device.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see annotated figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hafuka.
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not teach that the heat producing electronic component is an LED of a backlight.
Hafuka teaches that the heat-producing electronic component is a light-emitting diode (see p. 0037) of a backlight (backlight unit 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an LED of Hafuka to provide a long life and reliable light source to the PDA and notebook structures of Lee.
Claim(s) 8 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafuka in view of Dajek (U.S. 12,179,399, effectively filed 8/28/2020 as EP2020/074110, all references made to US patent for ease of reference) or unpatentable over Lee in view of Dajek.
Regarding claim 8, Hafuka/Lee does not teach that the carrier element is manufactured by internal-pressure injection molding forming the inner wall and the outer wall in one piece.
Dajek teaches a carrier element is manufactured by internal-pressure injection molding (see col. 9 lines 1-14) forming the inner wall and the outer wall in one piece (see col. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the carrier element of Hafuka/Lee by internal pressure injection molding as taught by Dajek to form the carrier element with minimal steps and connections, see background of Dajek.
Claim(s) 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafuka in view of Lee (U.S. 2007/0107875)
Regarding claim 10, Hafuka teaches a means comprising an electronic device (backlight) comprising:
a carrier element (24 and 9) having an inner wall and an outer wall; and
at least one heat producing electronic component (12) arranged on the inner wall of the carrier,
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the carrier element are connected to form a steam chamber (see p. 0084) between the inner wall and the outer wall that is paritally filled with a liquid and is designed to distribute heat produced by the at least one heat producing electronic component.
Hafuka does not teach that the electronic device is incorporated into a transportation means.
The use of the electronic device into a transportation means is the intended use of the device. Intended use limitations cannot be relied on to overcome the prior art.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear if incorporation into transportation means requires any structure or qualities of the device.
“(T)he recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Hafuka does not teach that the inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
Lee teaches that the inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see annotated figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thicker outer wall to provide higher conduction and enable the use of heat sink fins as taught by Lee, resulting in a higher heat dissipation effect and enhancing the structure of Hafuka.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Hafuka does not teach that the inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
Lee teaches that the inner wall having a first thickness and an outer wall having a second thickness, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see annotated figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thicker outer wall to provide higher conduction and enable the use of heat sink fins as taught by Lee, resulting in a higher heat dissipation effect and enhancing the structure of Hafuka.
Claim(s) 10 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafuka in view of Lee, further in view of Stellman (U.S. 10,321,615).
Regarding claim 10, Hafuka teaches a means comprising an electronic device (backlight) comprising:
a carrier element (24); and
at least one heat producing electronic component (12), wherein the carrier element is configured as a steam chamber (see p. 0084) and is designed to distribute heat produced by the at least one heat producing electronic component.
Hafuka does not teach that the electronic device is incorporated into a transportation means.
Stellman specifically teaches that the electronic device with a steam chamber is incorporated into a transportation means (thermal management with a fluid chamber, see col. 9 line 29-col. 10 line 26, used in an automobile, see col. 4 lines 14-28 ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a steam chamber structure as taught by Hafuka in a vehicle as taught by Stellman to provide proper thermal management to a display that is often exposed to high temperature changes, see background of Stellman, and thereby to provide a long life display for a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Hafuka has been reinterpreted in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that asserts that Hafuka does not teach an inner wall and outer wall of a carrier element that are connected to form a steam chamber, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hafuka clearly teaches an inner wall and an outer wall of the carrier element and has a steam chamber placed between such, see annotated figures above. The Examiner has interpreted such limitations in light of the disclosure.
Specifically, the Examiner does not find that claim 1 requires the carrier element to be a singular structure, it appears to set forth that the inner and outer wall are two separate structures that are connected, see figure 3. Hafuka teaches that a heat pipe is between the inner and outer wall of the carrier element to form the steam chamber. There are no limitations in the claims that exclude a heat pipe as part of the inner wall/outer wall structure.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes the effect of Hafuka and the claims are identical. I.e. whether Hafuka teaches the heat pipe then being enclosed, or teaches that the heat pipe inner and outer wall are integrally formed with the respective structures, i.e. 9 and 24, is immaterial to the operation of the device.
The Examiner suggests further defining the structure of the asserted invention as the claims are very broad.
The Examiner also has included an additional rejection in view of Lee.
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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights