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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth Specification objection has been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of objection, necessitated by Amendment.
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations. Applicant’s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of graphene polygons must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification failed to provide proper antecedent basis for “a plurality of graphene polygons”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9-15 and 17-19 are 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. Claim 9 has been amended to recite the limitation of “wherein the 3-D graphene structure includes a cross-section comprising a plurality of graphene polygons, wherein each respective graphene polygon of the plurality of graphene polygons surrounds, in the cross-section, a respective vapor chamber section, of a plurality of vapor chamber sections, that is disposed between a plurality of sides of the respective graphene polygon”. This limitation especially the phrase a plurality of graphene polygons does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Fig. 3 shows three graphene squares in a cross-section view, which has no corresponding description in words. The amended limitation is broader in scope than that of fig. 3, which includes two or more polygons, not just three as shown in fig. 3; additionally, polygons is generic to square, and their scopes are different. See 2163.05 Changes to the Scope of Claims.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 17-19 are rejected at least insofar as it is dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “wherein the metallic housing is divided into a plurality of chambers by at least one pillar” is unclear. It’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a plurality of chambers” since claim 9 already recites “a plurality of vapor chamber sections” which, per Figure 3 appear to be the same structure. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as both recitations are for the same structure.
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.
Claims 9-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20110108142 A1) in view of WU (US 20190033007 A1: Previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches a vapor chamber system (2: see Figures 3-5: cf. Figure 2), comprising: a metallic housing (20 and 21: see ¶ [0027]); a porous wick medium (28) coated on the inside walls of the metallic housing (see ¶ [0026] and Figure 3), wherein the porous wick medium (28) comprises a three-dimensional (3-D) structure (280), wherein the 3-D structure includes a cross-section comprising a plurality of polygons (28 that are on 210: see Figures 4 and 5),
wherein each respective polygon of the plurality of polygons (28 that are on 210: see Figures 4 and 5) surrounds, in the cross-section, a respective vapor chamber section (S), of a plurality of vapor chamber sections (sections of S: see Figure 5), that is disposed between a plurality of sides of the respective polygon (upper and lower sides of 28 that are on 210: see Figure 5), wherein a first side (upper side) of the plurality of sides is disposed at a first end (upper end) of the metallic housing and a second side (lower side) of the plurality of sides is disposed at a second end (lower end) of the metallic housing that opposes the first end of the metallic housing (see Figure 5).
Liu does not teach that the porous wick medium (28) is made out of graphene.
However, it’s old and well known in the art to use graphene as porous wick structure, as evidenced by WU, see WU’s ¶ [0020]: i.e. “The wick 220 includes CNTs and graphene, in aerogel form”.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the porous wick medium of Liu with a porous wick medium comprises a three-dimensional (3-D) graphene structure since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of increasing the vapor conversion cycle rate performance of the heat pipe, see WU’s ¶ [0023].
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of WU does not teach wherein the 3-D graphene structure has pore sizes ranging from 1 pm to 1000 pm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the pore sizes of the 3-D graphene structure would result in a difference in function of Liu in view of WU’s device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the pore sizes of Liu in view of WU’s 3-D graphene structure, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed sizes. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the 3-D graphene structure “can” be in different shapes with different pore sizes (specification at Page. 7 Line 1.) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of WU’s 3-D graphene structure to have pore sizes ranging from 1 µm to 1000 µm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the 3-D graphene structure has a porosity in the range of 30% to 99% by volume (see Liu’s ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu does not teach wherein the 3-D graphene structure has a minimum of 93% porosity by volume.
However, the porosity of the 3-D graphene structure is a results effective variable, as recognized by WU, see in WU’s ¶ [0023] where WU indicated that “The higher the porosity and/or the greater the surface area of the aerogel in the wick, the higher the capillary force exerted on the working fluid to draw liquid into the wick at the cool end 104 (FIG. 1) of the heat pipe, and transport it through the wick along the length of the heat pipe to the hot end 102 (FIG. 1); and the more rapidly this liquid transport occurs. Thus the high capillary force exerted by a CNT and graphene aerogel wick increases the vapor conversion cycle rate performance of the heat pipe”.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the 3-D graphene structure of Liu in view of WU with a minimum of 93% porosity by volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the 3-D graphene structure is fabricated in aerogel, foam or sponge form (see WU’s ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the 3-D graphene structure has a certain thickness between 1 nm to hundreds of micrometers (see WU’s ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the 3-D graphene structure has a thermal conductivity of k>3000 W/
m
∙
K
(see WU’s ¶¶ [0028 and 0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the metallic housing is divided into a plurality of chambers by at least one pillar (210: see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein an outer portion (upper and lower portion of Liu’s 28 as modified) of the 3-D graphene structure has a primary thickness (thickness of 28 in the vertical direction ) and wherein the plurality of vapor chamber sections are separated with inner portions (left and right portion of Liu’s 28 as modified) of the 3-D graphene structure having a secondary thickness (thickness of 28 in the horizontal direction), wherein the outer portion of the 3-D graphene structure comprises the first and second sides of the plurality of sides of the respective graphene polygon (upper and lower sides of 28 that are on 210: see Figure 5) and at least one of said inner portions (left and right portion of Liu’s 28 as modified) of the 3-D graphene structure comprises at least one other side (left and right sides of 28 that are on 210: see Figure 5) of said plurality of sides of the respective graphene polygon that is different from the first and second sides (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of WU further teaches wherein the metallic housing is copper, aluminum or tungsten (20 and 21: see ¶ [0027]).
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 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 on (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
Prosecution Insights