Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/110,958

Oscillating Heat Pipes

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 17, 2023
Examiner
AL SAMIRI, KHALED AHMED ALI
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
56 granted / 125 resolved
-25.2% vs TC avg
Strong +60% interview lift
Without
With
+59.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
156
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 125 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 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)). Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the cross-section view (A-A’) in Figure 3 does not match the indicated area shown in Figure 2 where the wick 201 appears to be external and separated from the channel 211 by the gating portion 203. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims objected to because of the following informalities: “An oscillating heat pipe as claimed” in claims 2-7, appears to be an error for “the oscillating heat pipe as claimed”. “An apparatus as claimed” in claims 9-12, appears to be an error for “the apparatus as claimed”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-7 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. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “an oscillating heat pipe, comprising: a channel configured to enable flow of working fluid between at least one condenser region and at least one evaporator region; at least one wick in fluidic connection with the channel so as to enable working fluid to flow from the channel into the wick; and at least one vent configured to enable working fluid in an, at least partial, vapour phase to be returned from the wick to the channel” is unclear. It’s unclear as to how the working fluid would return from the wick to the channel when the wick, which is a strip of porous material up which liquid is drawn by capillary action, is an external structure that is placed out of the channel without housing/ chamber (i.e. no working fluid would be left to return from the wick), see 201 in Figures 2 & 3 and specification Page 6 “In the example of Fig. 2 the oscillating heat pipe 101 comprises a wick structure 201. The wick structure 201 is located external to the channel 211 of the oscillating heat pipe 101”. Examiner notes that the lack of further details and explanation in the specification and the drawings prevent Examiner from having a proper understanding of the disclosed invention. Accordingly, Examiner is unable to have a clear claim interpretation and a proper understanding of the disclosed invention which prevent Examiner from applying a proper prior art rejection. Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “wherein a single wick is fluidically connected to a plurality of different sections of evaporator regions of the oscillating heat pipe” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “at least one wick”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the “single wick” is the same wick of claim 1 or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as the same wick of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “wherein a plurality of wicks are connected to a plurality of different evaporator regions of the oscillating heat pipe.” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “at least one wick”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the “at least one wick” of claim 1 is part of the “plurality of wicks” of claim 6 or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant further limiting the at least one wick of claim 1 to be a plurality of wicks. Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “wherein the wick comprises a gating portion and an evaporator portion.” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “at least one evaporator region”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the “evaporator portion” is the evaporator portion of claim 1 or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as the evaporator portion of claim 1. Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s). Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and drawings objection. Claims 8-12 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. Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “An apparatus, comprising: an oscillating heat pipe comprising a channel configured to enable flow of working fluid between at least one condenser region and at least one evaporator region; at least one wick in fluidic connection with the channel so as to enable working fluid to flow from the channel into the wick; and at least one vent configured to enable working fluid in an, at least partial, vapour phase to be returned from the wick to the channel; and one or more heat sources wherein the oscillating heat pipe is configured to cool the one or more heat sources” is unclear. It’s unclear as to how the working fluid would return from the wick to the channel when the wick, which is a strip of porous material up which liquid is drawn by capillary action, is an external structure that is placed out of the channel without housing/ chamber (i.e. no working fluid would be left to return from the wick), see 201 in Figures 2 & 3 and specification Page 6 “In the example of Fig. 2 the oscillating heat pipe 101 comprises a wick structure 201. The wick structure 201 is located external to the channel 211 of the oscillating heat pipe 101”. Examiner notes that the lack of further details and explanation in the specification and the drawings prevent Examiner from having a proper understanding of the disclosed invention. Accordingly, Examiner is unable to have a clear claim interpretation and a proper understanding of the disclosed invention which prevent Examiner from applying a proper prior art rejection. Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s). Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and drawings objection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 20100307721 A1). Ma (US 20130133871 A1). Smyrnov (US 20030037910 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.). 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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. /KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 05, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601549
THREE-DIMENSIONAL HEAT TRANSFER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595968
COOLING DEVICE WITH TWO END FACES THAT CAN BE SUPPLIED WITH ELECTRICITY SEPARATELY FROM ONE ANOTHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598723
HEAT CONDUCTION PLATE ASSEMBLY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595970
HEAT EXCHANGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584695
COMBINATION THERMAL MODULE AND WICK STRUCTURE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+59.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 125 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month