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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the third species or the embodiment of Figure 13, readable on claims 1, 4, and 5, in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “independent claim 1 defines a single inventive concept”, that none of dependent claims 2 through 9 are “outside the scope of claim 1” and that “accordingly, the claims define different implementations of the same claimed micropillar microtexture of claim 1”, that “the claims belong to the single inventive concept of claim 1 and do not claim different microtexture architectures because all claims fall within the same technical field of capillary-driven microtextures for thin film evaporation, and that “because the claims fall within the same technical field and relate to a single inventive concept, there is no serious search or examination burden” for examining all of the species.
This is not found persuasive for a variety of reasons, as follows. First of all, because the instant application is not a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, restriction practice does not relate to the presence or absence of unity and therefore arguments related to the existence of a single inventive concept and a common technical field are generally irrelevant to the appropriateness of the instant requirement for restriction/election, and thus also generally unpersuasive. Second of all, contrary to the applicant’s traversal argument, the dependent claims most certainly do claim different microtexture architectures as evidenced by the limitations in the various claims relating to different microtextures. Lastly, the existence of a generic claim (i.e., claim 1) does not preclude the existence of species claims and does not preclude the appropriateness of making a requirement for restriction/election.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 through 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the various non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 30, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because the overall line quality is poor and because of impermissible black shading in some of the drawings at least. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The present invention discloses”; “Also, we have proposed”), because it contains inconsistent terminology (i.e., “discloses microtextures” followed by “The microstructures” without prior reference to “microstructures” per se; “the cylindrical microstructured heat sink” without prior reference to a “cylindrical microstructured heat sink”), because it includes unclear and undefined relative terminology (i.e., “large”, “high”, “low”), and because it does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the inventive structure (i.e., “these microstructures can offer high permeability for liquid flow thereby leading to low viscous pressure loss as compared to the cylindrical microstrucutred heat sink”; “the predicted dryout heat flux for thin-film evaporation is more than twice that of the conventional cylindrical microstructures). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “plurality of micropillars” [claim 1, line 2] should be replaced with “a plurality of micropillars”, “atleast” [claim 1, line 2; claim 1, line 4] should be replaced with “at least”, “a thin-film of liquid” [claim 1, line 3] should be replaced with “a thin film of liquid”, and, “with varying number of wedges” [claim 5, line 2] should be replaced with “with a varying number of wedges”, both for improved grammatical and typographical correctness. 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, 4, and 5 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 1 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 4, but it is not clear which periphery (i.e., of which element) is being referred to thereby, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim .
The term “optimal” and the term “low” in claim 4 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “optimal” and “low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the respective requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, as used to qualify the hotspot cooling and the heat flux, these terms render the same indeterminate and the claims indefinite.
Claim 4 also recites the limitations "the wedged micropillars" in lines 1-2 of the claim and “the low heat flux background zones” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “said microtexture” in lines 1-2 of the claim and “the microtexture” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haj-Hariri et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,217,692).
Haj-Hariri et al. discloses microstructures for thin film evaporators (i.e., see at least lines 46-62 of column 2; lines 21-40 of column 9) essentially as claimed.
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Haj-Hariri et al. (especially Figures 4A, 4B, 5C, and 5D, but not limited thereto) discloses microstructures for thin film evaporation comprising a plurality of micropillars 14 configured from at least one predetermined profile for maintaining a thin film of liquid over a surface through capillary action (i.e., see at least lines 18-32 of column 20); and a micropillar 14 configured with at least one wedge on the periphery along the axis of the micropillar 14 (i.e., see at least Figure 4A and Figure 4B).
With regard to claim 4 of the instant application, Haj-Hariri et al. discloses the microtextures for thin film evaporation as claimed in claim 1, wherein wedged micropillars are configured to be positioned at the location of a hotspot for optimal hotspot cooling and the low heat flux background zones are configured with cylindrical micropillars (i.e., see at least lines 18-32 of column 20 and lines 28-45 of column 43) .
With regard to claim 5 of the instant application, Haj-Hariri et al. discloses the microtextures for thin film evaporation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the microtexture is configured with cylindrical micropillars, wedged micropillars with a varying number of wedges, and hybrid micropillars (i.e., see at least lines 46-67 of column 21 and lines 1-16 of column 22) to reduce the pressure drop for flow of liquid through the microtexture.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights