NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1 October, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAKAOKA (US 2020/0045847 A1 – published 6 February, 2020), in view of YEH (US 2017/0350657 A1 – published 7 December, 2017).
As to claim 1, WAKAOKA discloses a heat dissipating device (abstract; 1a-g; par. 45) comprising:
a lower case (7);
a plurality of pillars (3); and
an upper case (6) installed on the lower case ( figures 1-8; par. 54) and defining an internal space together with the lower case (par. 54),
wherein the internal space defined by the upper case and the lower case is filled with vapor (par. 79), and
the lower case and the upper case include unevenness portions between the plurality of pillars(8 and/or 9; figures 5 and 6)and the unevenness portions facing the upper case and the lower case, respectively (figures 5 and 6).
However, WAKAOKA does not disclose the lower case having a partition wall, such that the pillars are inside the partition wall and upper case is installed on the partition wall.
YEH is within the field of endeavor provided a heat dissipating device (abstract; figures 1-4; 10; par. 26). YEH teaches a lower case (12) including a partition wall (see annotated figures 3 and 4), such that a plurality of pillars are inside the partition wall (13; see annotated figures 3 and 4) and an upper case (11) is installed on the partition wall (see annotated figures 3 and 4). This is strong evidence that modifying WAKAOKA as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein; par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify WAKAOKA by YEH such that lower case included the partition wall, so as to cause the plurality of pillars to reside within the partition wall and the upper case to be installed on the partition wall of the lower case, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein(par. 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of YEH
PNG
media_image2.png
251
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of YEH
As to claim 2, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion is concavely(par. 68 and 71; figure 11) indented from a lower surface of the lower case toward the upper case(figures 5-6;par. 59 – corresponding shape between the structures 8 and 9).
As to claim 3, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion is convex(par. 68 and 71; figure 11) from a lower surface of the upper case toward the lower case (figures 5-6; par. 59 – corresponding shape between the structures 8 and 9).
As to claim 4, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein an electronic component (11; par. 85-87) is bonded to a lower surface of the lower case via a thermal interface material (figure 2; par. 63 and 69-70).
As to claim 5, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion is configured to be deformed by thermal deformation, during a bonding process of the electronic component and the lower case (par. 63 and 69-70), such that the lower surface of the lower case forms a flat plane (such as the flat plane portions at the ends of 8 and/or 9 as shown in figures 1-8) in response to the thermal deformation (MPEP § 2113 – I -- "[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)).
As to claim 6, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the lower case, the plurality of pillars, and the upper case include a metal material (par. 56 and 74) and include a same material (par. 56 and 74).
As to claim 7, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the lower case, the plurality of pillars, and the upper case include copper (par. 56 and 74).
As to claim 8, WAKAOKA, as modified presently, does not expressly disclose wherein the upper case is smaller than the lower case.
YEH, however, teaches the lower case (12) being larger than the upper case (11) (see annotated figures 3 and 4). This is strong evidence that modifying WAKAOKA as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein; par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify WAKAOKA by YEH such that the upper case is smaller than the lower case, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein(par. 27).
As to claim 9, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the plurality of pillars have a cylindrical shape (par. 71).
As to claim 10, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the plurality of pillars have a polygonal pillar shape (par. 71).
As to claim 11, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the depth of the unevenness portion is 20µm to 200µm (par. 65 – depth ‘E’; figure 1).
As to claim 12, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion has a curved cross-section (par. 71).
As to claim 13, WAKAOKA discloses a heat dissipating device (abstract; 1a-g; par. 45) comprising:
a lower case (7) including a base having a plate shape (par. 54);
a plurality of pillars (3) and on the upper surface of the base (par. 54, in view of par. 58); and
an upper case (6) coupled to the lower case ( figures 1-8; par. 54) to define an internal space with the lower case (par. 54),
wherein the internal space defined by the upper case and the lower case is filled with vapor (par. 79), and
the lower case and the upper case include unevenness portions between the plurality of pillars(8 and/or 9; figures 5 and 6), and
a lower surface of the base of the lower case and an upper surface of the upper case are configured to be deformed into a flat planar shape in response to thermal deformation (such as the flat plane portions at the ends of 8 and/or 9 as shown in figures 1-8; MPEP § 2113 – I -- "[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)).
However, WAKAOKA does not disclose the lower case having a partition wall, such that the pillars are inside the partition wall and the partition wall extends from an upper surface of the base.
YEH is within the field of endeavor provided a heat dissipating device (abstract; figures 1-4; 10; par. 26). YEH teaches a lower case (12) including a partition wall (see annotated figures 3 and 4), such that a plurality of pillars are inside the partition wall (13; see annotated figures 3 and 4) and the partition walls extends from an upper surface of the base (see annotated figures 3 and 4). This is strong evidence that modifying WAKAOKA as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein; par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify WAKAOKA by YEH such that lower case included the partition wall, so as to cause the plurality of pillars to reside within the partition wall and the partition walls extends from an upper surface of the base, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein(par. 27).
As to claim 14, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion in the lower case is convex(par. 68 and 71; figure 11) toward the upper case (figures 5-6;par. 59 – corresponding shape between the structures 8 and 9).
As to claim 15, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion in the upper case is convex(par. 68 and 71; figure 11) toward the lower case (figures 5-6; par. 59 – corresponding shape between the structures 8 and 9).
As to claim 16, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the depth of the unevenness portion is 20µm to 200µm (par. 65 – depth ‘E’; figure 1).
As to claim 17, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the unevenness portion has a curved cross-section (par. 71).
As to claim 18, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the lower case, the plurality of pillars, and the upper case include a metal material (par. 56 and 74) and include a same material (par. 56 and 74).
As to claim 19, WAKAOKA, as modified, further discloses wherein the lower case, the plurality of pillars, and the upper case include copper (par. 56 and 74).
As to claim 20, WAKAOKA, as modified presently, does not expressly disclose wherein the upper case is smaller than the lower case.
YEH, however, teaches the lower case (12) being larger than the upper case (11) (see annotated figures 3 and 4). This is strong evidence that modifying WAKAOKA as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein; par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify WAKAOKA by YEH such that the upper case is smaller than the lower case, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of bonding the lower case and upper case to form the defined chamber therein(par. 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 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, 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 9/28/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights