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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 01/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "first lower reservoir wall" in the 3D vapor chamber. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2023/184491).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a 3D vapor chamber (10A, Fig. 6, [0034]) comprising:
a lower body (100A, Fig. 6, [0034]), defining an evaporator region (112A, Fig. 6, [0045]);
a header positioned above the lower body (See annotated Fig. 6 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
788
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
conduits (parts of 200A excluding the header) extending between the lower body and the header (See annotated Fig. 6 above, conduits in other 200A other than the labeled header extend between the lower body and the header vertically rather than directly between the lower body and the labeled header), wherein the conduits are configured to direct a flow of working fluid between the lower body and the header ([0004], [0037], [0045]); and
a condenser region (parts of 200A excluding the header, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, [0003], [0004], [0019], [0034]) positioned between the lower body and the header (Fig. 6); and
wherein the evaporator region includes a lower wall (Wang: See annotated Fig. 7 below) and extended surfaces (Wang: 115A, Fig. 6, [0038]) that extend upwardly from the lower wall (Wang: See annotated Fig. 7 below),
wherein the evaporator region further includes a wick structure (Wang: 300A, 400A, Fig. 7, [0042]) that extends at least partially over the extended surfaces (Wang: Fig. 7, [0042]).
PNG
media_image2.png
852
1262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang teaches the extended surfaces are fins (extended surfaces are broadly interpreted to be fins as they are thermal conductive metal plates (Wang: [0038], [0039]), which can distribute heat) that define a matrix in the evaporator region (Wang: Fig. 6), wherein the extended surfaces are configured to provide structural support for the evaporator region (Wang: [0038] to [0040], 115A are metal plates, connected to the first supports 113A, and are welded to the bottom plate 110A similarly to supports 113A and 114A and can therefore can be configured to provide structure support).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang teaches the evaporator region further includes posts (Wang: 113A, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0036]) extending vertically upwardly from the fins (Wang: Fig. 7), wherein the wick structure further extends over the posts (Wang: Fig. 7, over is broadly interpreted to mean across).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang teaches each of the extended surfaces includes a root located where the extended surface rises upwardly from the lower wall, wherein the wick structure has a first thickness along one of the fins, and a second thickness at one of the roots, wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (See annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
872
1280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang teaches each of the fins has a first width (See annotated Fig. 6 below) and
PNG
media_image4.png
642
1150
media_image4.png
Greyscale
each of the posts has a second width (width of circular top cross-section of 113A in Fig. 6), wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the wick structure is positioned in the lower body (Fig. 7) so as to block movement of a vaporized portion of the working fluid, and to force the vaporized portion of the working fluid to enter one or more of the conduits, and to flow up into the header before flowing back down through one or more of the conduits (See MPEP 2114(II) - "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and "A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." In the instant case, the wick is claimed to be positioned in the lower body, and using this arrangement to block movement of a vaporized portion of the working fluid, and to force the vaporized portion of the working fluid to enter one or more of the conduits, and to flow up into the header before flowing back down through one or more of the conduits is only an intended use of that arrangement).
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) 1-8, 11-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/184491), and further in view of Kawabata (US 2023/0269910).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a 3D vapor chamber (10A, Fig. 6, [0034]) comprising:
a lower body (100A, Fig. 6, [0034]), defining an evaporator region (112A, Fig. 6, [0045]);
a header positioned above the lower body (See annotated Fig. 6 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
788
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
conduits (parts of 200A excluding the header) extending between the lower body and the header (See annotated Fig. 6 above, conduits in other 200A other than the labeled header extend between the lower body and the header vertically rather than directly between the lower body and the labeled header);
a condenser region (200A, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, [0003], [0004], [0019], [0034]); and
a working fluid located within at least one of the lower body, the header, or the conduits ([0045]), wherein the conduits are configured to direct a flow of the working fluid to and from the lower body and the header ([0004], [0037]), wherein a portion of the working fluid is configured to be in vaporized form during use ([0004]), and another portion of the working fluid is configured to be in liquid form during use ([0004]).
Wang does not teach wherein the conduits are arranged such that the vaporized working fluid and the liquid working fluid are configured to flow in a same direction in at least one of the conduits.
However, Kawabata teaches wherein the conduits (15, [0070], See annotated Fig. 9 below) are arranged such that the vaporized working fluid ([0070]) and the liquid working fluid ([0070]) are configured to flow in a same direction in at least one of the conduits ([0051], 40 has 41, [0070], working fluid in gas phase flows through 15 in an outward direction of 40 from 40 and diffuses throughout the container 10; [0070], liquid phase working fluid flows inside 53 and flows back to 51, See annotated Fig. 9 below, [0094]).
PNG
media_image5.png
704
940
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 the vapor chamber (Wang: 100A) to use the container inner surface area increasing unit (Kawabata: 40) and wick structure and placement (Kawabata: 51, 52, 53) in order to reduce thermal resistance at the time of the working fluid in a liquid phase changing in phase to a gas phase, to prevent dry-out of the working fluid in a liquid phase in the evaporation unit, and to exhibit excellent heat transport properties (Kawabata: [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches the vaporized working fluid and the liquid working fluid are configured to flow in a same direction in the condenser region (vapor chamber 100A in Fig. 7 of Wang, which is similar to container 10 in Fig. 9 of Kawabata, is thermally connected to heat dissipation fins (Wang: [0034]); Kawabata: [0070], Kawabata teaches condensation can happen within the vapor chamber as the vapor chamber is thermally connected to the fins (Wang: [0021], [0037]) and therefore is also a condenser region; the vaporized working fluid and liquid working fluid flow in the same direction as shown in Kawabata annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches the lower body defines a hollow interior (Wang: S, [0042], Kawabata: 13, [0046]) and a recessed well (Wang: 112A, [0036], Kawabata: 16, [0095]), wherein the recessed well defines at least a portion of the evaporator region (Wang: [0004], [0037], Kawabata: [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches the lower body defines a liquid reservoir (Kawabata: 16 and 17, Fig. 9, [0095]; Kawabata: [0098]) configured to receive the liquid working fluid from the condenser region (See claim 2 rejection above, S can also be a condenser region) and to direct the liquid working fluid toward the recessed well (Kawabata: [0070], working fluid that changes to liquid phase flows back to 53 and then 51; Kawabata: [0098], liquid phase can flow back through 52),
wherein the liquid reservoir includes a lower reservoir wall, an upper reservoir wall, a side reservoir wall that extends from the lower reservoir wall to the upper reservoir wall, and a boundary wall that extends upwardly from the lower reservoir wall and terminates before reaching the upper reservoir wall (Kawabata: See annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
700
934
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang does not teach the boundary wall has a serpentine shape.
However, having the shape of the boundary wall as serpentine would not affect the operation of the device.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shape of the boundary wall as serpentine. Because such shape would not have modified the function of the device, the modification of the shape would be a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the boundary wall was significant. (See reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966))
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang teaches a wick structure (Kawabata: 51 and 52, Fig. 9) that extends into the recessed well, wherein the wick structure includes a peripheral portion that extends upwardly out of the recessed well and wraps up and over the boundary wall (Kawabata: 51 and 52, See annotated Fig. 9 above for boundary wall).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches the peripheral portion physically contacts the upper reservoir wall, and also physically contacts the first lower reservoir wall (Kawabata: 51 and 52, Fig. 9), and wherein the peripheral portion is configured to inhibit the vaporized working fluid from passing therethrough (Kawabata: [0070], [0079], as liquid working fluid flows within the wicks, the vaporized working cannot pass through the wicks as easily when compared to not having any wick in the peripheral portion).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang teaches the at least one of the conduits is a first conduit, wherein the wick structure is a first wick structure (Kawabata: See annotated Fig. 9 below),
wherein the 3D vapor chamber further includes a second conduit and a second wick structure (Kawabata: 53) extending vertically within the second conduit, wherein the second wick structure is configured to direct the liquid working fluid toward the first wick structure (Kawabata: [0070], See annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
704
940
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches the evaporator region includes a lower wall (Wang: See annotated Fig. 7 below) and extended surfaces (Wang: 115A, Fig. 6, [0038]) that extend upwardly from the lower wall (Wang: See annotated Fig. 7 below),
wherein the evaporator region further includes a wick structure (Wang: 300A, 400A, Fig. 7, [0042]) that extends at least partially over the extended surfaces (Wang: Fig. 7, [0042]).
PNG
media_image2.png
852
1262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang teaches the extended surfaces are fins (extended surfaces are broadly interpreted to be fins as they are thermal conductive metal plates (Wang: [0038], [0039]), which can distribute heat) that define a matrix in the evaporator region (Wang: Fig. 6), wherein the extended surfaces are configured to provide structural support for the evaporator region (Wang: [0038] to [0040], 115A are metal plates, connected to the first supports 113A, and are welded to the bottom plate 110A similarly to supports 113A and 114A and can therefore can be configured to provide structure support).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang teaches the evaporator region further includes posts (Wang: 113A, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0036]) extending vertically upwardly from the fins (Wang: Fig. 7), wherein the wick structure further extends over the posts (Wang: Fig. 7, over is broadly interpreted to mean across).
Regarding claim 19, Wang does not teach the wick structure includes powder ribs.
However, Kawabata teaches the wick structure includes powder ribs ([0066]).
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 the vapor chamber (Wang: 100A) to use the container inner surface area increasing unit (Kawabata: 40) and wick structure and placement (Kawabata: 51, 52, 53) in order to reduce thermal resistance at the time of the working fluid in a liquid phase changing in phase to a gas phase, to prevent dry-out of the working fluid in a liquid phase in the evaporation unit, and to exhibit excellent heat transport properties (Kawabata: [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record failed to teach “the header includes posts configured to provide structural support for the header, wherein the posts have non-circular cross-sectional shapes to facilitate a flow of the working fluid through the header along a lateral direction.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record failed to teach “wherein a density of the air-cooled fins in one stack is different than a density of air-cooled fins in a different stack.”
Conclusion
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