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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected with traverse Species A (Figures 1A-4) in the reply filed on 6/10/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 8/28/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-9 are pending;
Claims 1-9 are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US2020/0025458A1) in view of Lin (US2017/0122672A1).
Re Claim 1. Takahashi teaches a vapor chamber heatsink assembly (1), under vacuum (paragraph 160-161 teaches forming a vacuum during assembly), having a working fluid (2) therein (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161), comprising:
a vapor chamber (1), including a lower casing (10) and an upper casing (20) (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161);
wherein the lower casing (10) comprises: a lower chamber surface (12a); and a contact surface (10b) opposite the lower chamber surface; wherein the lower chamber surface comprises: a plurality of lower obstructers (13), each plurality of lower obstructers has a lower obstructer geometric shape; and a plurality of lower flow channels (12), wherein the plurality of lower obstructers is arranged on the lower chamber surface and the plurality of lower obstructers protrude from the lower chamber surface to define the plurality of lower flow channels between each neighboring plurality of lower obstructers (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161); and
wherein the upper casing comprises: an upper chamber surface (21a); and a mounting surface (20b) opposite the upper chamber surface; wherein the upper chamber surface comprises: a plurality of upper obstructers (22), each plurality of upper obstructer has an upper obstructer geometric shape; and a plurality of upper flow channels (21); wherein the plurality of upper obstructers is arranged on the upper chamber surface and the plurality of upper obstructers protrude from the upper chamber surface to define the plurality of upper flow channels between each neighboring plurality of upper obstructers (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161);
wherein the lower obstructer geometric shape of each plurality of lower obstructers is equal to a corresponding upper obstructer geometric shape of each plurality of upper obstructers (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161);
wherein the lower casing and the upper casing are vacuum-sealed together, whereby lower obstructer surfaces of each plurality of lower obstructers is combined with upper obstructer surfaces of each plurality of upper obstructers to form a plurality of obstructers and the plurality of lower flow channels are combined with the plurality of upper flow channels to form a plurality of flow channels (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161);
wherein the plurality of flow channels includes a first flow channel extending (left to right channels in Figure 2, see annotated Figure 2 below; channels 32-34 in Figure 16, see annotated Figure 16 below) continuously across the vapor chamber from adjacent a first edge of the vapor chamber to adjacent a second edge of the vapor chamber opposite the first edge (Figure 2 illustrates a continuous flow channel from the left side to the right side of the vapor chamber via 12; Figure 16 illustrates a continuous first flow channel), and a second flow channel (end vertical channels in Figure 2, see annotated Figure 2 below; or 51-54 in Figure 16, see annotated Figure 16 below) extending continuously across the vapor chamber from adjacent a third edge of the vapor chamber to adjacent a fourth edge of the vapor chamber opposite the third edge (Figure 2 illustrates a continuous vertical flow channel at both ends of the vapor chamber that connect the third and fourth sides. Figure 16 illustrates cross flow channels formed by 51, 52, 53, 54 to form a continuous flow channel across the vapor chamber, see annotated Figure 16 below), the first flow channel intersecting and being in fluid communication with the second flow channel (see annotated Figures 2 and 16 below) (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161); and
wherein the working fluid is disposed in the plurality of flow channels (Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 160-161).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
604
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takahashi teaches an exterior mounting surface (20b) (Figures 1-3) and therefore fails to specifically teach a plurality of heatsink fins disposed on the mounting surface, each plurality of heatsink fins span across a width of the mounting surface, each plurality of heatsink fins together form a plate fin heat sink on the vapor chamber.
However, Lin teaches it is known to form fins (12) on a vapor chamber such that a plurality of heatsink fins (12) are disposed on the mounting surface (111), each plurality of heatsink fins span across a width of the mounting surface, each plurality of heatsink fins together form a plate fin heat sink on the vapor chamber (Figures 3-5).
Therefore, in view of Lin's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add external heatsink fins to the vapor chamber of Takahashi in order to increase the heat dissipation of the vapor chamber, as is well-understood in the art.
Re Claim 5. Takahashi further teaches each plurality of obstructers comprises a four-sided shape (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193).
Re Claim 6. Takahashi further teaches the four-sided shape is not a square shape (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193).
Re Claim 7. Takahashi further teaches the plurality of obstructers is arranged in an in-line arrangement (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193).
Re Claim 8. Takahashi further teaches wherein the at least one of the first flow channel or the second flow channel forms a wavy shape (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193).
Re Claim 9. Takahashi as modified by Lin teach the lower chamber surface defining the plurality of lower flow channels include a wick structure disposed thereon (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193; Lin Figure 5, Paragraphs 32 teaches a capillary wick structure).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US2020/0025458A1) in view of Lin (US2017/0122672A1) and in further view of Vanderwees (US2019/0033006A1).
Re Claim 2. Takahashi teaches a first heat source (D), the first heat source is thermally coupled to the contact surface and arranged overlapping at least one first plurality of flow channels defined by two first plurality of obstructers on a first opposite side of the contact surface (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193).
Takahashi fails to specifically teach a second heat source, and the second heat source is thermally coupled to the contact surface and arranged overlapping at least one second plurality of flow channels defined by two second plurality of obstructers on a second opposite side of the contact surface, the two first plurality of obstructers are different from the two second plurality of obstructers.
However, Vanderwees teaches a first heat source (left 26 in Figure 9) and a second heat source (right 26 in Figure 9), the second heat source is thermally coupled to the contact surface and arranged overlapping at least one second plurality of flow channels defined by two second plurality of obstructers on a second opposite side of the contact surface, the two first plurality of obstructers are different from the two second plurality of obstructers (Figure 9 illustrates two hear sources at different locations; Paragraph 91, 100-103). When Vanderwees is combined with Takahashi, the resulting combination would be two heat sources on the contact surface of Takahashi, wherein the individual obstructors of Takahashi would result in the two first plurality of obstructers are different from the two second plurality of obstructers since the two heat sources are separated.
Therefore, in view of Vanderwees's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a second heat source to the vapor chamber of Takahashi in order to dissipate heat from additional components, thereby providing increased heat dissipation to the assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a second heat source, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B).
Re Claim 3. Takahashi as modified by Vanderwees teach the first heat source generates a first operating temperature and the second heat source generates a second operating temperature, wherein the second operating temperature is greater than the first operating temperature (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193; Vanderwees Figure 9, Paragraphs 91, 100-103, wherein paragraph 103 teaches “The multiple heat-generating components may be the same or different, and may each comprise a processor (computer chip), rechargeable battery, etc.”. When the heat-generating components are different, they would have different operating temperatures. Thus Vanderwees teaches “the first heat source generates a first operating temperature and the second heat source generates a second operating temperature, wherein the second operating temperature is greater than the first operating temperature”), and wherein at least one plurality of obstructers is between the first heat source and the second heat source, such that a flow path formed by the plurality of flow channels from the first heat source to the second heat source comprises at least one bend (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193. The meandering shape of the obstructor in Figure 16 is considered a bend. Vanderwees Figure 9, Paragraphs 91, 100-103. Figures 9-10 of Vanderwees illustrates several bends in the obstructors).
Re Claim 4. Takahashi as modified by Vanderwees teach the at least one bend comprises a 90-degree elbow-like bend (Takahashi Figures 1-3, 16; Paragraphs 104-126, 193. Vanderwees Figure 9, Paragraphs 91, 100-103. Figures 9-10 of Vanderwees illustrates several 90 degree bends in the obstructors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takahashi allegedly fails to teach the new limitation of “wherein the plurality of flow channels includes a first flow channel extending continuously across the vapor chamber from adjacent a first edge of the vapor chamber to adjacent a second edge of the vapor chamber opposite the first edge, and a second flow channel extending continuously across the vapor chamber from adjacent a third edge of the vapor chamber to adjacent a fourth edge of the vapor chamber opposite the third edge, the first flow channel intersecting and being in fluid communication with the second flow channel”. As can be seen in the annotated Figure 2 of Takahashi (reproduced below), Takahashi teaches the recited continuous first and second flow channels that intersect in Figure 2. Alternatively, Figure 16 (annotated version reproduced below) also teaches continuous first flow channels via 32-34 and continuous second flow channels across the vapor chamber via communicating paths 51-54. Applicant argues that the communicating paths 51-54 in Figure 16 are not “continuous flow paths”. Communicating paths 51-54 allow fluid to continuously move from one side of the vapor chamber to the opposing side of the vapor chamber. The claim makes no assertion as to the shape or configuration of the flow paths and thus the meandering flow path of Figure 16 of Takahashi reads on the recited limitations. Thus, the communicating paths 51-54 do form a continuous flow path across the vapor chamber. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
604
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights