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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/3/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 7-11 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 18 is 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. The limitation of “an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure in the condensation section is substantially the same” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear what applicant is comparing the overall thickness of the composite structure in the condensation section to. (what is its thickness the same with?) . It is not sure whether applicant is claiming that the overall thickness of the composite capillary structure in the condensation section is constant.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of “the second capillary structure is a microgroove, a metal mesh, a sintered powder structure or a sintered ceramic structure” in combination with limitation “the first capillary structure at least partially fills in the second capillary structure in the transmission section” recited in claim 1, is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant discloses (figures 4-5) that the second capillary (115) is a groove and the first capillary (121) partially fill in (recesses and protrusion). However, the limitation that the second capillary structure is a metal mesh, a sintered powder structure or a sintered ceramic structure and the first capillary structure partially fills in the metal mesh, the sintered powder structure and the sintered ceramic structure is not supported by the original disclosure.
Claim 18 is further rejected as can be best understood by the examiner in which the overall thickness of the composite capillary structure in the condensation section is constant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
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 1-6 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakawa (WO 2014157147A1) in view of Honda et al. (US 4,018,269).
Hamakawa discloses (figures 4a-4d) a heat pipe comprising a heat pipe comprising an outer pipe (41), comprising a vaporization section (21), a condensation section (22) and a transmission section (23), wherein the vaporization section and the condensation section connected to two opposite sides of the transmission section (23), the outer pipe (41) has an accommodating chamber (55), and the accommodating chamber extends from the vaporization section to the condensation section; a composite capillary structure, located in the accommodating chamber of the outer pipe, wherein the composite capillary structure comprises a first capillary structure (52) and a second capillary structure (51), the first capillary structure is stacked on the second capillary structure (51), the second capillary structure (51) is stacked on the outer pipe (41), and the first capillary structure (52) is at least disposed in the vaporization section (21) of the outer pipe (see figure 4b); wherein an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure in the vaporization section is substantially equal to an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure in the transmission section (see figure 4a), and wherein the first capillary structure (52) at least partially fills in the second capillary structure (51) in the transmission section. (see figure 4b and c).
Regarding claim 1, Hamakawa does not disclose at least one inner pipe, located in a portion of the accommodating chamber in the transmission section, wherein the at least one inner pipe divides the portion of the accommodating chamber in the transmission section into at least into at least one inner channel and at least one outer channel, the at least one inner channel and the at least one outer channel are in fluid communication with other portions of the accommodating chamber in the vaporization section and the condensation section, and the composite capillary structure is partially located in the at least one outer channel. Honda et al. discloses (figure 3) at least one inner pipe (2), located in a portion of the accommodating chamber in the transmission section, wherein the at least one inner pipe divides the portion of the accommodating chamber in the transmission section (middle section that has inner pipe 2) into at least into at least one inner channel (vapor channel inside the pipe 2) and at least one outer channel (outside of pipe 2) , the at least one inner channel and the at least one outer channel are in fluid communication with other portions of the accommodating chamber in the vaporization section (X) and the condensation section (Y), and a capillary structure (3) is partially located in the at least one outer channel for a purpose of separating the evaporated working fluid from the liquid working at the transmission section so that heat transfer performance of the heat pipe is improved. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Honda’s teaching in Hamakawa’s heat pipe for a purpose of separating the evaporated working fluid from the liquid working at the transmission section so that heat transfer performance of the heat pipe is improved.
Regarding claim 2, Hamakawa discloses that the first capillary structure (52) is a sintered powder structure.
Regarding claim 3, Hamakawa further discloses that the second capillary structure (51) is microgroove (see figure 4b-4c).
Regarding claim 4, Hamakawa further discloses (figure 4a) that a thickness of the portion of the composite capillary structure in the vaporization section (21) is different from a thickness of the portion of the composite capillary in the condensation section (22).
Regarding claim 5, Hamakawa further discloses (figure 4A-4D) that a capillary force of the portion of the composite capillary structure (51,52) in the vaporization section (21) is greater than a capillary force of the portion of the composite capillary structure in the condensation section (22). (wick in the evaporation section includes a sintered wick structure 52 in combination with the grooved wick 51, while the wick in the condensation section includes only grooved wick 51).
Regarding claim 6, Hamakawa further discloses (figures 4A-4D) that a porosity of the portion of the composite capillary structure (51,52) in the vaporization section is less than a porosity of the portion of the composite capillary structure (51) in the condensation section. (the groove 51 in the vaporization 21 is filled with material 52, hence it has less porosity than the groove 51 in the condensation section).
. Regarding claim 12, the combination device of Hamakawa in view Honda discloses (figure 4 of Honda) a percentage of a ratio of a cross sectional area of the at least one inner pipe (2) to a cross section area of the outer pipe (1) is greater than or equal to 30% (basing on the geometrical relationship shown in figure 4 between the cross section of the inner pipe (2) and the outer pipe (1).
Regarding claim 13, a limitation of the “transmission section” is interpreted as the section of the outer pipe that corresponds to the location of the inner pipe (2). Honda discloses (figure 3) a length of the at least one inner pipe (2) is equal to a length of the transmission section. (the transmission section is defined as the section of the outer pipe that corresponds to the length of the inner tube 2).
Regarding claim 14, a limitation of the “transmission section” is interpreted as the section of the outer pipe that corresponds to the location of the inner pipe (2), Honda discloses (figure 1) a length of the at least one inner pipe is less than a sum of a length of the transmission section + 5 mm to 15 mm. (the transmission section is defined as the section of the outer pipe that corresponds to the length of the inner tube 2).
Regarding claim 15, Hamakawa further discloses (figures 4A-4D) that the overall thickness of the composite capillary structure (51,52) in the vaporization section is greater than an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure (51) in the condensation section.
‘Regarding claim 16, Hamakawa further discloses (figure 4A-4d) that the overall thickness of the composite capillary structure (51,52) in the transmission section (23) is greater than an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure (51) in the condensation section (22)
Regarding claim 17, Hamakawa discloses (figures 4A-4C) that an overall thickness of the first capillary structure (51) in the vaporization section (21) is substantially equal to an overall thickness of the first capillary structure (51) in the transmission section (23)
Regarding claim 18, Hamakawa discloses (figure 4A and 4D) that an overall thickness of the composite capillary structure (51) in the condensation section (22) is the same.
Regarding claim 19, Hamakawa discloses (figure 4A) that the first capillary structure (52) extends from the vaporization section (21) to the transmission section (23)
Regarding claim 20, Hamakawa discloses (figure 4A) that the second capillary (groove 51) extends from the vaporization section (21) to the condensation section (22).
Regarding claim 21, Hamakawa discloses (figures 4a-4d) that the second capillary structure (groove 51) extends through the outer pipe (41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hou et al. (US 2007/0193722A1) discloses an inner pipe inside the heat pipe.
Gaboa et al. (JP 55046331A) discloses a heat pipe with inner pipe.
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 THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights