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’s election of Invention I (claims 1 – 14) in the reply filed on September 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Invention II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 12, 2025.
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“supporting structures” recited in claim 2
“supporting and limiting assembly” recited in claim 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation ‘supporting structure’ invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (‘structure’).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“supporting” or ‘for supporting’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “supporting and limiting assembly” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“assembly”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“supporting and limiting” or ‘for supporting and limiting’).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “supporting and limiting assembly” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a transverse portion and a plurality of vertical portions arranged at intervals to the transverse portion,” as taught by the Specification (paragraph 48), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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 2 – 4 and 8 – 14 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “each supporting structure.” Examiner notes that the claim previously sets forth “a plurality of supporting structures.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘plurality of supporting structures’ previously set forth, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to also refer to ‘supporting structures’ other than those previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the supporting structures.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “the supporting column.” Examiner notes that the claim previously sets forth a plurality of ‘supporting columns.’ This can be found because the claim previously sets forth a step of ‘forming a supporting column of each of the supporting structures by sintering.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘supporting columns’ previously set forth, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one of the ‘supporting columns’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the supporting columns.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a fourth capillary structure.” Examiner notes that the claim does not previously set forth, or otherwise require, a ‘third capillary structure.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether or not Applicant intends the claim to also include a ‘third capillary structure.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the claim so as to depend upon claim 3, rather than claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 3 sets forth a “third capillary structure.”
Claims 8, 9, and 10 each recite the limitation “the latch insert.” Examiner notes that claim 8 previously sets forth “a plurality of latch inserts.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to each of the “plurality of latch inserts,” or whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to one of the “plurality of latch inserts.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “each of the plurality of latch inserts.”
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “the outer sides of the shaping insert groups at both sides.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer sides.” Secondly, Applicant’s intent regarding “both sides” is generally unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “outer sides of the shaping insert groups, wherein each of the shaping insert groups have at least two of the outer sides.”
As explained above, the claim limitation “a plurality of supporting structures” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the Specification provides proper antecedent basis for the limitation (paragraphs 27 – 29), the Specification does not provide sufficient structure for the limitation to performed the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 – 4 and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the limitation “a plurality of supporting structures” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not provide sufficient structure for the limitation to performed the claimed function. Therefore, the limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0122799).
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a manufacturing method for a three-dimensional heat dissipation device (abstract), the method comprising: a thermally conductive casing manufacturing step comprising manufacturing a thermally conductive casing with an airtight chamber (figure 3a, element 10 being the ‘thermally conducting casing’; paragraph 25). Examiner notes that the ‘fixing base’ of Lin may be reasonably be considered a “casing” because the ‘fixing base’ of Lin includes a trough that is configured to encase a heat pipe (figure 3a, element 12 being the ‘trough’; paragraph 25). The ‘fixing base’ of Lin may further be reasonably considered to be an “airtight chamber” because “chamber” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “an enclosed body,” wherein “enclosed” defined as “closed in.” Therefore, because the ‘fixing base’ of Lin does not include a through-aperture or opening into an interior of the ‘fixing base,’ the ‘fixing base’ of Lin may reasonably be considered to be a “chamber.” Lin further teaches a preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device manufacturing step comprising installing a plurality of round heat pipes on the thermally conductive casing to form a preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device (figures 4 and 5, elements 20 being the ‘round heat pipes’; paragraph 25); and a final three-dimensional heat dissipation device manufacturing step comprising fixing the preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device by means of a shaping mold (figure 6, element 40 being the ‘shaping mold’; paragraph 25), and shaping a pipe body of the round heat pipe into a flat heat pipe to obtain a final three-dimensional heat dissipation device (figures 6 and 7, element 200 indicating the ‘flat heat pipe’; paragraphs 25 – 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 - 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lin does not teach an upper module member, a lower module member, and a supporting and limiting assembly, comprising a transverse portion and a plurality of vertical portions arranged at intervals along the transverse portion, and the final three-dimension heat dissipation device manufacturing step comprising: installing the preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device on the lower module member so that at least part of the round heat pipe is located in a shaping region of the lower module member; installing the supporting and limiting assembly on the lower module member to fix the shaping region; and inserting the upper module member into the lower module member and squeezing at least part of the round heat pipe located in the shaping region during the insertion process to squeeze at least part of the round heat pipe located in the shaping region into a flat heat pipe to obtain the final three-dimensional heat dissipation device, as recited by claim 5.
Alternatively, Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0163267) teaches a manufacturing method for a three-dimensional heat dissipation device (abstract), the method comprising: a thermally conductive casing manufacturing step comprising manufacturing a thermally conductive casing with an airtight chamber (figures 1 and 2, elements 100 and 200 being the ‘thermally conductive casing’ and elements S being the ‘airtight chamber’; paragraphs 14 – 15); a preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device manufacturing step comprising installing at a plurality of round heat pipes on the thermally conductive casing to form a preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device (figures 1 and 2, elements 500 being the ‘plurality of round heat pipes’; paragraphs 14 and 29). However, Liu does not teach a final three-dimensional heat dissipation device manufacturing step comprising: fixing the preliminary three-dimensional heat dissipation device by means of a shaping mold, and shaping a pipe body of the round heat pipe into a flat heat pipe to obtain a final three-dimensional heat dissipation device, as required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726