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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakus et al. US 2020/0353129.
Regarding claim 1, Jakus et al. disclose a composition (paste) for forming porous objects such as coatings comprising:
water-soluble salt particles such as copper-containing salts such as copper sulfate [0024];
water-insoluble solid particles that can be metal particles, water-insoluble metallic salt particles, e.g. water-insoluble sulfates, fluorates, chlorates, carbonates and any combination of these [0025];
polymer binder [[0023] (meets adhesive); and
organic solvent [0029], wherein the binder is soluble in the solvent [0019].
The compositions generally comprise small volume fraction of polymer binder to help hold the particles together in the final product [0022-0023].
The compositions can be used to form coatings and have a solid particle content of at least 50 vol% and the ratio of water-soluble salt particles to other particles in the composition will depend on the desired degree of porosity in the objects made from the composition, 1-99% water-soluble salt particles and 99-1% non-water soluble particles [0027]. The compositions initially takes the form of a viscous liquid [0032]. Jakus provides an example composition of 35 vol% binder, 35 vol% copper sulfate, 35 vol% nickel [0068]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used basic copper carbonate or basic copper sulfate as water-insoluble solid particles in the composition as these are known water-insoluble carbonate and sulfate salts, and Jakus et al. envisage using copper salts as suggested by use of copper sulfate as water-soluble salt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the composition with a combination of metal particles and at least one of basic copper carbonate or basic copper sulfate as Jakus et al. teach using a combination of water-insoluble solid particles is suitable for the composition.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have provided the metal particles, basic copper carbonate and/or basic copper sulfate, binder and solvent in amounts suitable to form viscous composition to meet the requirements desired to form the porous object such as coating, including amounts which include or overlaps the claimed mass fraction amounts, as Jakus et al. teach solid particle content of the composition of at least 50 vol%, the ratio of water-soluble salt particles to other particles in the composition depends on the desired degree of porosity in the objects made from the composition, including 1-99% water-soluble salt particles to 99-1% non-water soluble particles, forming a viscous liquid and as example, provides a composition of 35 vol% binder, 35 vol% copper sulfate, 35 vol% nickel. Any combination of metal particles and basic copper carbonate and/or basic copper sulfate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of using any combination.
The preamble language “for preparing a capillary structure” is directed to intended use that does not distinguish the claimed paste from the composition suggested by Jakus et al. The polymer binder (adhesive) is capable of bonding the metal powder and the compound powder to a cover plate of a vapor chamber, thus meets “configured for bonding the metal powder and the compound powder to a cover plate of a vapor chamber”; the metal powder is capable of being dried to form a matrix of the capillary structure on a cover plate of the vapor chamber, thus meets “capable of being dried to form a matrix of the capillary structure on the cover plate of the vapor chamber”; the compound powder is capable of forming grooves and through holes on a matrix to improve heat transfer performance of a vapor chamber, the through holes are communicated with each other, a diameter of each of the through holes ranges from 10-100 um, and a size of each of the grooves along a width direction of each of the grooves ranges from 10-100 um, thus meets the claimed property of the compound powder. The limitation to how the paste is to be used to form a matrix of capillary structure on a cover plate of a vapor chamber with through holes and grooves on the matrix of particular diameter and size do not distinguish the claimed paste from the composition of Jakus et al.
Regarding claim 2, Jakus et al. discloses that the particles may have a broad range of sizes and shapes, for example spherical, and dimensions of 10 nm to 1 mm, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.1-100um. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to provide the metal particles of spherical copper as Jakus et al broadly suggest metal particles, mentions use of copper salts and provides example using nickel metal, thus envisages using copper which is a metal similar to nickel.
Regarding claim 4, Jakus et al. the particles may have a broad range of sizes and shapes, for example spherical, and dimensions of 10 nm to 1 mm, which encompasses the claimed range of 100-300 mesh. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Jakus et al. disclose the binder can be polyacrylate [0023] (an acrylic resin).
Regarding claim 6, Jakus et al. disclose an organic solvent that has a high vapor pressure as the primary organic solvent of the composition [0029]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used any suitable high vapor pressure organic solvent such as toluene, xylene, acetone or ethanol to make the composition of Jakus et al. as these are known high vapor pressure organic solvents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the paste is applied to the cover plate of a vapor chamber to form a capillary structure and Jakus does not disclose how the paste is applied to the vapor chamber, nor size of grooves and through holes in the paste.
As set forth tin the rejection, the claim is to a paste and to what structure it is applied (cover plate) and the type of structure the paste is capable of forming (grooves and through holes of particular size) does not distinguish the paste from the composition of Jakus. Applicant has not proved that the composition of Jakus et al. which has the same components does not have component (metal powder) capable of forming a matrix and component (compound powder) capable of forming through holes and grooves on the matrix.
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 MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights