DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 03/30/2026. Amended claims 1, 11 and 31 are acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14 and 29-33 are pending. Claims 5-8, 10 and 15-28 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 10, “the first casing.” should read –the first casing layer.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2006/0162905).
Regarding claim 31, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-like planar heat pipe, which is a type of thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (fig. 7),
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (fig. 7),
a working fluid disposed within the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) [par. 0021];
a permeable wick (10) (permeable, since wick 10 comprises a metallic web, par. 0018) disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (figs. 6-8); and
a single deformed mesh (11) layer (best seen in fig. 1, as it applies to the embodiment of figs. 6-7) having an array of deformations (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, seen in figs. 6-7) and nondeformations (111) (fig. 7),
the deformed mesh (11) disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the permeable wick (10) (fig. 7).
wherein the single deformed mesh layer (11) is disposed relative to the first casing layer (top plate of 1) (disposed on the inner surface of the first casing layer-top plate of 1).
The recitation "wherein a periphery of the first casing layer and the second casing layer are bonded to each other" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "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 this instance, the product taught by Hsu, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this instance, dividing the thermal ground plane into two parts for ease of manufacturing would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 32, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-like planar heat pipe, which is a type of thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (fig. 7),
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (fig. 7),
a working fluid disposed within the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) [par. 0021];
a permeable wick (10) (permeable, since wick 10 comprises a metallic web, par. 0018) disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (figs. 6-8); and
a woven mesh (11) (the mesh 11, being a metallic web mesh, par. 0022, is read as a woven mesh) having a pattern of deformations (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, seen in figs. 6-7) formed throughout a substantially planar surface (substantially, as understood from par. 0172 of the instant PGPub) of the mesh (11) (seen in fig. 7),
the woven mesh (11) being disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the permeable wick (10) (fig. 7).
The recitation "wherein a periphery of the first casing layer and the second casing layer are bonded to each other" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "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 this instance, the product taught by Hsu, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this instance, dividing the thermal ground plane into two parts for ease of manufacturing would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-14, 29-30 and 33 allowed.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14 and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in light of the remarks and amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 2-3, regarding claim 32, Applicant argues that Hsu does not disclose a woven mesh or a pattern of deformations; that Hsu discloses the opposite of a woven mesh citing paragraph 0019 that reads “…the radially and axially arranged stripes 110, 111 -of mesh 11- are mutually and orthogonally stacked, but not mutually interwoven.”
In response, Hsu discloses in paragraph 0022 that mesh 11 can be a metallic web, which is known in the art of heat pipes to be a woven wick mesh structure made of metal wires that are woven together. The segment of Hsu’s paragraph 0019 cited by the Applicant refers to the fact that the two stripes 110 and 111 are not mutually interwoven. The fact remains that the mesh 11 (110 and 111) is disclosed as a metallic web in paragraph 0022, which is a woven mesh structure made of metal wires that are woven together.
Regarding the pattern of deformations, Applicant provides no arguments to support that Hsu does not disclose a pattern of deformations. Hsu clearly discloses the heat pipe assembly being deformed/flattened during manufacturing (seen in figs. 6 to 7) [par. 0024], wherein element 110 is deformed and is also arranged in a pattern of stripes.
In pages 6-7, regarding claims 31-32, Applicant argues that the recitation “wherein the first casing layer and the second casing layer are bonded to each other” is not a product-by-process limitation; That there is nothing in the Office Action to show any rational that the first casing layer and the second casing layer being bonded to each other is the same or similar to that of the prior art although produced by a different process; That the claims recite a first casing and a second casing bonded together around a periphery; and that in Hsu the casing is a pipe that doesn’t have two layers and is not bonded around a periphery.
In response, first, Hsu does disclose two layers: the top layer of pipe (1) and the bottom layer of pipe (1). Second, the final product claimed is a thermal ground plane, which is known as a flat type of heat pipe; Hsu discloses a flat type heat pipe (see fig. 7). The difference between the two is that the end portions of heat pipe claimed are manufactured by connecting and bonding the top and bottom layers. In Hsu’s heat pipe the end portions are an integral part of the flat tube heat pipe and also connect the top and bottom layers of the heat pipe. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this instance, dividing the thermal ground plane into two parts, namely top and bottom layers, and connecting the layers by bonding, for ease of manufacturing, would have been obvious. It is noted, the overly broad language of claims 31-32 allows a broad interpretation of the claims which reference Hsu reads on.
The arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 29 and 30 are moot because claim 1 is now allowable subject matter and claims 2-3, 11, 13-14 and 29-30 depend on claim 1.
For clarity, The Office Action mailed 11/06/2025 includes an inadvertent oversight. The heading introducing the rejection to claim 32 inadvertently referred to Section 102 because the rejection of claim 32 missed the consideration of the limitation "wherein a periphery of the first casing layer and the second casing layer are bonded to each other" as a product by process limitation. Claim 32 was intended to be rejected like claim 31 including the consideration of the product-by-process limitation. The oversight has been clarified in the instant Office Action, which maintains the same grounds of rejection for claim 32 but now correctly allocated under 103 since the limitation regarding the product-by-process limitation is now included in the rejection.
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).
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 GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights