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 Interpretation
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.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “supporting structures” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of supporting columns, wherein each of the plurality of supporting columns are covered by a third capillary structure,’ as taught by the Specification (figure 3, elements 114 being the ‘supporting structures,’ elements 1141 being the ‘supporting columns’ and elements 1142 being the ‘third capillary structures’; paragraph 29), or an equivalent thereof.
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 an 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 3, 4, and 9 – 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 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 2. Examiner notes that claim 3 sets forth a “third capillary structure.”
Claims 9 and 10 each recite the limitation “the latch insert.” Examiner notes that claim 8 previously sets forth “a plurality of latch inserts” as well as “a first latch insert of the latch inserts.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to each of the “plurality of latch inserts,” the “first latch insert,” or a ‘second latch insert’ of the “plurality of latch inserts.” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “the first latch insert of the latch inserts.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 – 8 and 22 – 27 are allowed.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 – 14 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 2, Examiner’s closest art, Lin (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0122799), was presented and discussed in the previous Office Action. However, Lin does not teach, either expressly or implicitly, a thermal conductive casing manufacturing step that comprises: forming a first capillary structure and a plurality of supporting structures, wherein each of the plurality of supporting structures comprise a supporting column covered by a third capillary structure, on a bottom surface of an interior of a first casing; forming a second capillary structure on a top surface of an interior of a second casing; performing diffusion welding on the first casing and the second casing; and installing the second casing on the first casing, and connecting the first capillary structure to the second capillary structure through the supporting structures, as recited by claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Examiner notes that the reasons for allowance of claim 5 were presented and discussed in the previous Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that the limitation “a fourth capillary structure,” recited in claim 4, does not require a first, second, and third ‘capillary structures’ and that the limitation merely distinguishes itself from other ‘capillary structures.’ Examiner disagrees. “Four” is a numerical integer that comes after ‘three.’ Therefore, a ‘capillary structure’ can only be a “fourth capillary structure” if there are also at least ‘three’ other ‘capillary structures.’ As explained above, Because claim 4 does not otherwise require a ‘third capillary structure,’ the limitation is indefinite.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights