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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 20 including depending claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claims 1, 20 recite “a second area that is in contact with the first inner surface and this is smaller than the first area”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear which sections are considered as first/second areas in order to have an understanding of how they are obtained, and further it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to establish that a second area is in contact with the first inner surface. The specification does not define how it is determined or how it is calculated that a second area is smaller than a first area. More clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “a surface of the first part located in the first region and that is in contact with the first inner surface has a third area that is greater than a fourth area of the first part that is not in contact with the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear which section is considered as first inner surface in order to have an understanding of how a third area and a fourth area are obtained, and further it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to establish that a surface of the first part is in contact with the first inner surface. The specification does not define how a third area is greater than a fourth area is determined or calculated. More clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites “a surface comprising a third area of the first part located in the first region and that is in contact with the first inner surface that is equal to a fourth area of the first part not in contact with the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear which section is considered as a surface in order to have an understanding of how a third area and a fourth area are obtained, and further it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to establish that a third area is in contact with the first inner surface. The specification does not define how it is determined or how it is calculated that a third area is equal to a fourth area. More clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites “the two first parts at least partially overlap in a direction parallel to the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to determine that two first parts parallel to the first inner surface. The specification does not assign a part number for the first inner surface in order to have an understanding of the first parts parallel to the first inner surface. More clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “the two parts are spaced from each other in a direction parallel to the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to determine that two first parts are parallel to the first inner surface. The specification does not assign a part number for the first inner surface in order to have an understanding of the first parts are parallel to the first inner surface. More clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “a second inner surface positioned opposite the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear where a second inner surface is located in order to determine that a second inner surface positioned opposite the first inner surface. The specification does not assign part numbers for the first inner surface and a second inner surface in order to have an understanding of the claimed limitations in claim 10. More clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “a second capillary structure completely covering the first inner surface”. The bolded phrases make the claimed limitations indefinite, because it is unclear where the first inner surface is located in order to determine that a second capillary structure completely covering the first inner surface. The specification does not assign part number for the first inner surface in order to have an understanding of the claimed limitations in claim 11. More clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “a liquid state”. It is unclear if the bolded limitation refers to the previously claimed limitation in claim 1. Not only does the phrase in claim 11 lacks a definite article (e.g. the or said) but the limitation is inconsistently recited.
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, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1).
Claim 1: Horng discloses a vapor chamber (FIG.19) comprising:
a housing (boards 1/2 constructing housing in FIG.19) comprising:
a first inner surface (paragraph [56]: inner face 12) comprising a first area (to clarify, inner face 12 forming area within);
a cavity (paragraph [57]: board 1/2 recessed from inside thereby forming a cavity) configured to contain a working fluid (paragraph [57]: working fluid L) when the working fluid is in a gaseous state (paragraph [15]);
a first region (annotated FIG.19); and a second region (annotated FIG.19);
a first capillary structure (capillary structure P1) located in the housing (boards 1/2 constructing housing), configured to contain the working fluid (L) when the working fluid is in a liquid state (paragraph [20]: liquid cooling module), and comprising: a surface (surface is inherent to structure of P1 see FIG.19) comprising a second area (to clarify, capillary structure P1 forming area within) that is in contact with the first inner surface (12) and this is smaller than the first area (as shown in FIG.6 second area of P1 is smaller than first area of 12);
a first part (annotated FIG.19) located in the first region (annotated FIG.19); and
a second part (annotated FIG.19) located in the second region (annotated FIG.19) and comprising: a trunk structure (annotated FIG.19) coupled to the first part (annotated FIG.19); and a branch structure (annotated FIG.19) comprising at least one branch proximate to the trunk structure (annotated FIG.19).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20: Horng discloses an electronic device (paragraph [62]) comprising:
a heat source (H);
a cold source (fan used as cold source; paragraph [62]: cooling fan); and
a vapor chamber (paragraph [66]: vapor chamber) comprising: a housing (boards 1/2 constructing housing in FIG.19) comprising:
an inner surface (paragraph [56]: inner face 12) comprising a first area (to clarify, inner face 12 forming area within);
a cavity (paragraph [57]: board 1/2 recessed from inside thereby forming a cavity) configured to contain a working fluid (paragraph [57]: working fluid L) when the working fluid is in a gaseous state (paragraph [15]);
a first region (annotated FIG.19) adjacent to the heat source (H); and a second region (annotated FIG.19);
a capillary structure (capillary structure P1) located in the housing (boards 1/2 constructing housing), configured to contain the working fluid when the working fluid is in a liquid state (paragraph [20]: liquid cooling module), and comprising: a surface (surface is inherent to structure of P1 see FIG.19) comprising a second area (to clarify, capillary structure P1 forming area within) that is in contact with the inner surface (12) and this is smaller than the first area (as shown in FIG.6 second area of P1 is smaller than first area of 12);
a first part (annotated FIG.19) located in the first region (annotated FIG.19); and
a second part (annotated FIG.19) located in the second region (annotated FIG.19) and comprising: a trunk structure (annotated FIG.19) coupled to the first part (annotated FIG.19); and a branch structure (annotated FIG.19) adjacent to the cold source and comprising at least one branch in contact with or proximate to the trunk structure (annotated FIG.19).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Oda (US 2024/0353182 A1).
Claim 2: Horng fails to disclose wherein the at least one branch comprises at least two sub-branches.
However, Oda teaches the at least one branch comprises at least two sub-branches (paragraphs [32-50]: vapor passages 51 gradually winded from one side to the other side in an extension direction of additional vapor passages 51 into other branches) for the purpose of enhancing heat dissipation efficiency ([3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include the at least one branch comprises at least two sub-branches as taught by Oda in order to enhance heat dissipation efficiency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Sun (US 2022/0046783 A1).
Claim 3: Horng fails to disclose wherein a second capillary pore diameter of the second part is greater than a first capillary pore diameter of the first part.
However, Sun teaches a second capillary pore diameter of the second part is greater than a first capillary pore diameter of the first part (paragraph [38]: capillary structure 311 and 312 with pore diameters may have same or with different diameters, which one pore diameter is less than or equal to other diameter) for the purpose of reducing backflow resistance of working fluid and thermal resistance ([7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include a second capillary pore diameter of the second part is greater than a first capillary pore diameter of the first part as taught by Sun in order to reduce backflow resistance of working fluid and thermal.
Claims 4-7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1).
Claim 4: Horng discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a surface (inherent) of the first part (annotated FIG.19) located in the first region (annotated FIG.19) and that is in contact with the first inner surface (12) has a third area (inherent) a fourth area (inherent) of the first part (annotated FIG.19) that is not in contact with the first inner surface (12), except for a third area that is greater than a fourth area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to optimize a third area and a fourth area such that a third area that is greater than a fourth area, as a matter of choice based on the design requirement, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality for the limitations is not claimed - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 5: Horng discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a surface comprising a third area of the first part located in the first region and that is in contact with the first inner surface that is equal to a fourth area of the first part not in contact with the first inner surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to optimize a third area and a fourth area such that a third area that is equal to a fourth area, as a matter of choice based on the design requirement, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality for the limitations is not claimed - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B.
Claim 6: Horng discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, except for wherein the housing further comprises two second regions, wherein the first capillary structure further comprises two second parts, and wherein the second parts are disposed in the two second regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include duplicate of two second regions, wherein the first capillary structure further comprises two second parts, and wherein the second parts are disposed in the two second regions in order to enhance cooling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the limitations are not claimed - Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B.
Claim 7: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, further comprising at least two first capillary structures (P1/P2) comprising two first parts (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to include duplicate of two first parts in order to enhance cooling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the limitations are not claimed - Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B) located in the first region (annotated FIG.19).
Claim 9: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the two first parts (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to include duplicate of two first parts in order to enhance cooling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the limitations are not claimed - Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B), except for are spaced from each other in a direction parallel to the first inner surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to rearrange the two first parts such that the two first parts are spaced from each other in a direction parallel to the first inner surface as a matter of choice based on design requirement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Note that no criticality of the limitations are claimed and special significance for the two first parts - Location of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Claim 10: Horng discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises a second inner surface (22) positioned opposite the first inner surface (12), and wherein the vapor chamber (preamble - FIG.19) further comprises a gap between the second inner surface and the first capillary structure (to clarify, there is a gap or distance between inner surface 12 and P1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Yamamoto (6,082,443).
Claim 8: Horng as modified further fails to disclose wherein the two first parts at least partially overlap in a direction parallel to the first inner surface.
However, Yamamoto teaches the two first parts at least partially overlap in a direction parallel to the first inner surface (column 12 lines 9-20: protrusion portions 15 partially overlap each other portions 15 of surface 16 adjusted in height by changing thickness, inner surface of wall 6; see FIG.8) for the purpose of making heat transfer large making it easy to transfer heat in large quantities (column 4 lines 24-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to include the two first parts at least partially overlap in a direction parallel to the first inner surface as taught by Yamamoto in order to make heat transfer large making it easy to transfer heat in large quantities.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Lin (US 2023/0324130 A1).
Claim 11: Horng discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second capillary structure (P2) the first inner surface (12) and comprising a surface (inherent), wherein the first capillary structure (P1) is located on the surface, and wherein the second capillary structure (P2) is configured to contain the working fluid (L) when the working fluid is in a liquid state (paragraph [20]: liquid cooling module), except for a second capillary structure completely covering the first inner surface.
However, Lin teaches a second capillary structure completely covering the first inner surface (paragraph [28] :capillary structure 2 covers interior surface of housing 1) for the purpose of achieving the advantages of a smooth flow of the working fluid and a stable heat dissipation efficiency of the module (paragraph [6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include a second capillary structure completely covering the first inner surface as taught by Lin in order to achieve the advantages of a smooth flow of the working fluid and a stable heat dissipation efficiency of the module.
Claim 13: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein a first capillary pore diameter of the first capillary structure (P1) is different (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the term different is a relative term, it can be different shape, size, dimension, location, and etc.) from a second capillary pore diameter (pore diameter is inherent to dimension of capillary shape) of the second capillary structure (Lin, paragraph [28] :capillary structure 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Lin (US 2023/0324130 A1), and in view of Sun (US 2022/0046783 A1).
Claim 12: Horng as modified further fails to disclose the second capillary structure comprises: a third part located in the second region and comprising a first capillary pore diameter; and a fourth part located in the first region and comprising a second capillary pore diameter, wherein the first capillary pore diameter is greater than the second capillary pore diameter.
However, Sun teaches the second capillary structure (paragraph [33]: capillary structure 31) comprises:
a third part located in the second region (paragraph [33]: 311) and comprising a first capillary pore diameter (paragraph [38]: capillary structures with pore diameters may have same or with different diameters); and
a fourth part located in the first region (paragraph [33]: 312) and comprising a second capillary pore diameter (paragraph [38]: capillary structure 311 and 312 with pore diameters may have same or with different diameters), wherein the first capillary pore diameter is greater than the second capillary pore diameter (paragraph [38]: capillary structures with pore diameters may have same or with different diameters, and one pore diameter may be less than or equal than other diameter) for the purpose of reducing backflow resistance of working fluid and thermal resistance ([7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include the second capillary structure comprises: a third part located in the second region and comprising a first capillary pore diameter; and a fourth part located in the first region and comprising a second capillary pore diameter, wherein the first capillary pore diameter is greater than the second capillary pore diameter as taught by Sun in order to reduce backflow resistance of working fluid and thermal.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Lin (US 2023/0324130 A1), and in view of Cheng (US 2025/0048593 A1).
Claim 14: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, the second capillary structure (P2), except for is made of foam metal.
However, Cheng teaches a capillary structure is made of foam metal (paragraph [78]: capillary structure 606/608 formed from metal-foam) for the purpose of enhancing the mechanical property of the structure (Preferred Material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to include a capillary structure is made of foam metal as taught by Cheng in order to enhance the mechanical property of the structure.
Claim 15: Horng as modified further fails to disclose wherein the second capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure.
However, Cheng teaches the second capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure (paragraph [78]: capillary structure 606/608 formed from layers of metal-foam) for the purpose of enhancing the mechanical property of the structure (Preferred Material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Horng to include the second capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure as taught by Cheng in order to enhance the mechanical property of the structure.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horng (US 2022/0163269 A1), in view of Cheng (US 2025/0048593 A1).
Claim 16: Horng fails to disclose wherein the first capillary structure is made of foam metal.
However, Cheng teaches the first capillary structure is made of foam metal (paragraph [78]: capillary structure 606/608 formed from metal-foam) for the purpose of enhancing the mechanical property of the structure (Preferred Material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include the first capillary structure is made of foam metal as taught by Cheng in order to enhance the mechanical property of the structure.
Claim 17: Horng fails to disclose wherein the first capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure.
However, Cheng teaches the first capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure (Cheng, paragraph [78]: capillary structure 606/608 formed from layers of metal-foam) for the purpose of enhancing the mechanical property of the structure (Preferred Material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Horng to include the first capillary structure is a multi-layer stacked structure as taught by Cheng in order to enhance the mechanical property of the structure.
Claim 18: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 17, wherein the multi-layer stacked structure is pre-formed (Cheng, paragraph [78]).
Claim 19: Horng as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 17, wherein a processing manner of the multi-layer stacked structure is one of calendering, silk-screen printing, three-dimensional printing, or electroplating (In product-by-process claim, “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 "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, 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 19, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “a processing manner of the multi-layer stacked structure is one of calendering, silk-screen printing, three-dimensional printing, or electroplating” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to vapor chambers:
Sui (US 2023/0207424 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights