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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2017/153066) and Liu (US 2020/370837).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a three-dimensional (3D) heat transfer device ([0026]), comprising:
a thermal conductive shell body (10, Fig. 3, [0003], [0026]) having a liquid-tight chamber ([0003], enclosed circulation);
at least one first pipe (20, [0028]) having a first end (2014, [0028]) connected to the thermal conductive shell body and in communication with the liquid-tight chamber ([0028]); and
Lin does not teach at least one second pipe having at least two portions that are connected to the thermal conductive shell and in communication with with the liquid-tight chamber.
However, Liu teaches a vapor chamber including a main body (20, Fig. 1, [0017]), which has a first chamber (200, Fig. 1, [0018]), a first opening (201, Fig. 1, [0018]), and a second opening (202, Fig. 1, [0018]), and a tubular body (3, Fig. 1, [0016]) having a first end (30, Fig. 1, [0016]), a second end (31, Fig. 1, [0016]), and a passage (32, Fig. 1, [0016]). The first and second ends are inserted in the first and second openings, and the passage of the tubular body communicates with the first chamber via the first and second ends ([0019]). Liu also teaches the vapor chamber can greatly enhance the heat dissipation efficiency as the first chamber of the main body and the passage of the tubular body form a loop for the vapor-liquid circulation ([0005], [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 2 pipes of Lin (Lin: 20) to use the pipe shape and connections to the vapor chamber of the tubular body (Liu: 3, Fig. 4) of Liu in order to greatly enhance the heat dissipation efficiency (Liu: [0005], [0008]).
As a result, in view of Lin including the teachings of Liu to use the pipe shape and connections to the vapor chamber of Liu, such that the combination necessarily yields “the at least one second pipe having a hollow space (2016, [0033]) and including at least one blocking-flow wick (Lin: 202 lining up the wall of 20, [0028]) disposed in the hollow space (Fig. 3) at one end (2014, Fig. 3, [0033]; the second pipe of Lin in view of Liu would have two of open ends 2014 instead of one open end 2014 and one closed end 2013) of the at least one second pipe,
wherein a diameter of the at least one blocking-flow wick is flush with a diameter of the hollow space of the at least one second pipe (Fig. 3, the outer diameter of the annulus-shaped cross-section of the wick in the middle of the pipe in the plane perpendicular to the up and down direction of the page is the same as diameter of the hollow space if the hollow space includes the wick, or the inner diameter of the annulus-shaped cross-section of the wick in the middle of the pipe in the plane perpendicular to the up and down direction of the page is the same as diameter of the hollow space if the hollow space excludes the wick), and
wherein a volume of a portion of the hollow space blocked by the at least one blocking-flow wick is less than 50% of a total volume of the hollow space (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0028], 202 formed on the inner side 2012 of 201; the thickness of 202 shown in both figures is signficantly less than the thickness of the hollow space 2016; therefore, the volume of a portion of the hollow space blocked by the at least one blocking-flow wick is less than 50% of a total volume of the hollow space).”
Regarding claim 2, modified Lin teaches opposite ends of the second pipe are connected to the thermal conductive shell and in communicate with the liquid-tight chamber (Liu: [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin teaches the thermal conductive shell body includes a first shell body (Lin: 102 and a vertical half of 103, Fig. 3, [0026]) and a second shell body (Lin: 101 and the other vertical half of 103, Fig. 3, [0026]), the second shell body is disposed on the first shell body to form the liquid-tight chamber (Lin: Fig. 3, [0026]), and the first pipe and the second pipe body are connected to the second shell body (Liu: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin teaches a first wick (Lin: 106, Fig. 3, [0026]) that is disposed on the first shell body, and the blocking-flow wick is connected to the first wick (Lin: Fig. 3, [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lin teaches a first wick (Lin: 106, Fig. 3) and a second wick (Lin: 106, Fig. 3), the first wick is disposed in the first shell body (Lin: Fig. 3) and the second wick is disposed in the second shell body (Lin: Fig. 3), and the blocking-flow wick is connected to the second wick (Lin: Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin teaches the blocking-flow wick penetrates the second wick (Lin: Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lin teaches an end of the blocking-flow wick that is facing the second shell is at a same level as an outer surface of the second wick that is facing away the liquid-tight chamber (Lin: Fig. 3, Fig. 4, end near 1044).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lin teaches a first wick (Lin: 202, Fig. 3, Fig. 4) disposed in the first pipe, a cross-section area of the first wick is smaller than a hollow space of the first pipe (Lin: Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly added limitation “wherein a diameter of the at least one blocking-flow wick is flush with a diameter of the hollow space of the at least one second pipe” is considered to not merely added for clarity but also alters the scope of the claim. Original claim 4 pertains to the cross-section area of the blocking flow wick matching a cross-section of the hollow space of the second pipe. The new limitation pertains to the diameter of the block-flow wick being flush with the diameter of the hollow space, where a diameter can be broadly interpreted by definition as “a straight line passing from side to side through the center of a body or figure.”
A wick having a square-shaped cross-section inside a pipe hollow space having a circular cross-section on the same plane as the wick can have a matching diameter with the circle. This wick would not have the same cross-section area, by shape or area, as the cross-section of the hollow space. Therefore, the newly added limitation is outside the scope of original claim 4.
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “the claimed blocking-flow wick is a porous, plug-like wick body positioned in the hollow space at one end of the second pipe.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the blocking-flow wick is a porous, plug-like wick body positioned in the hollow space at one end of the second pipe) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 ET.
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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights