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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 12/26/2025 are as follows:
Claims 2, 13, and 16 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claim 20 is newly added;
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 4/28/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-076829 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant stated in the reply dated 12/26/2025 that retrieval of a copy of the foreign priority document was permitted through Priority Document Exchange (PDX) and that the document was retrieved on August 1, 2023 and logged on Patent Center. However, that certified copy is not currently of record in the application file wrapper. The examiner inquired into various departments about whether the priority document has been retrieved, but was unable to get verification of the document retrieval. Thus, it is unclear if the priority document has been properly retrieved. Accordingly, since the certified copy is not currently in the file wrapper, the certified copy of the priority document will be treated as not filed until such time the document is properly retrieved and added to the file wrapper.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 3-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauhan (US2015/0060021A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Hou (US2007/0240855A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Chauhan teaches an evaporation unit (110) with dual layer sintered bodies (104) of a heat transport member (100) in which a container (102) including an internal space (106) in which a working fluid (108) is enclosed comprises an evaporation unit (110) in which the working fluid in a liquid phase changes in phase from the liquid phase to a gas phase, and a condensation unit (112) in which the working fluid in a gas phase changes in phase from the gas phase to a liquid phase, the condensation unit being disposed in a different site (at 118) from the evaporation unit (which is at 116, wherein 118 is at a different location than 116) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-31),
wherein a sintered body layer (104) in which raw material particles containing a metal are sintered is provided on an inner surface of the evaporation unit of the container (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40), and
the sintered body layer with an average thickness n comprises a first site (126) that is a region of n/2 on an inner surface side of the container, and a second site (128) that is a region of n/2 on the internal space side (Figure 1 illustrates that thickness T1 of the first site 126 is equal to the thickness T2 of the second site 128. Therefore, each site is a thickness of n/2; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40),
a percentage of voids (146) of the first site is less than a percentage of voids (150) of the second site (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Figure 4A illustrates more pores in the second site than the first site; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40), and
in the first side and the second site, the raw material particles are a mixture including first raw material particles having a predetermined average primary particle size, and second raw material particles having an average primary particle size smaller than the first raw material particles (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40).
Chauhan teaches the sintered body layer is formed through the entire evaporation unit (Figures 1 and 4A-C) but fails to specifically teach the sintered body layer composed of mixture including the first raw material particles and the second raw material particles is provided only in the evaporation unit of the container.
However, Hou teaches it is known to form the sintered body layer (210) only in the evaporation unit (400) of the container (100) (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 13-17). When Hou is combined with Chauhan, the resulting combination would be the sintered body layer of Chauhan would only be within the evaporation section of Chauhan.
Therefore, in view of Hou's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the sintered body layer only in the evaporation unit of Chauhan in order to reduce the manufacturing cost of the evaporation unit by utilizing less sintered body material. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to eliminate the sintered body layer through the rest of the container, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (see MPEP 2144.04, II, A).
Re Claim 3. Chauhan teaches the average primary particle size of the first raw material particles is 50 μm or more and 300 μm or less (Paragraph 38 teaches the first particle S1 size is 50 μm, which is within the cited range), and the average primary particle size of the second raw material particles is 1.0 nm or more and 10 μm or less (Paragraph 38 teaches the second particle S2 size is 10μm, which is within the cited range) (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40).
Re Claim 4 & 5. Chauhan teaches the average primary particle size of the second raw material particles is 10μm to 100μm (Paragraph 38) but fails to specifically teach 1.0 nm or more and 1000 nm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the second raw material particle size to 1.0 nm or more and 1000 nm or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the second raw material particle size to 1.0 nm or more and 1000 nm or less, 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 6 & 7. Chauhan teaches a ratio of the average primary particle size of the first raw material particles to the average primary particle size of the second raw material particles is 20 or more and 50000 or less (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40; When the first particle size S1 is on the low end of the size range and the second particle size S2 is on the upper end of the size range, than the ratio would be within 20-5000).
Re Claim 8 & 9. Chauhan teaches the raw material particles contain a certain parts by mass of the second raw material particles, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first raw material particles (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40), but fails to specifically teach the ratio of 10 parts by mass or more and 1000 parts by mass or less of the second raw material particles, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first raw material particles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the ratio mass of the second to first raw material particles, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the ratio mass of the second to first raw material particles to achieve 10 parts by mass or more and 1000 parts by mass or less of the second raw material particles, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the first raw material particles, 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 10 & 11. Chauhan teaches the first raw material particles contain particles of copper and/or a copper alloy, and the second raw material particles contain particles of copper and/or a copper alloy (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40; Paragraph 31 teaches the casing and sintered layers 126, 128 can all be made of the same material. Paragraph 29 teaches vapor chamber, and by association the casing, can be made of copper. Thus, if the casing is copper, and the casing and sintered layers are made of the same materials, than the first and second raw material particles contain particles of copper).
Re Claim 12, 14. Chauhan teaches an average size of voids (S4) of the second site is 1 μm or more and 200 μm or less (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40; Paragraph 39 teaches the pore size, which is equivalent to voids, is 1μm -50μm, which is within the cited range).
Re Claim 15 & 17. Chauhan teaches an average thickness n of the sintered body layer (Figures 1 and 4A-C; Paragraphs 28-31, 37-40) but fails to specifically teach the average thickness no of the sintered body layer is 100 μm or more and 1.0 mm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the average thickness of the sintered body layer of Chauhan to be 100 μm or more and 1.0 mm or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the average thickness of the sintered body layer of Chauhan to be 100 μm or more and 1.0 mm or less, 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 18. Chauhan teaches a heat transport member (100), comprising the evaporation unit structure according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above; Figure 1, Paragraphs 28-29).
Re Claim 19. Chauhan teaches the heat transport member is a vapor chamber (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-29).
Re Claim 20. Chauhan as modified by Hou teaches in the container, no sintered body layer in which raw material particles containing a metal are sintered is provided in the site other than the evaporation unit (Chauhan Figure 1; Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 13-17. The evaporation portion 400 of Hou contains the sintered particles, whereas the remaining sections 500 and 600 only contain a grooved channel 200).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the reply that Chauhan fails to teach the new limitation of “the sintered body layer composed of mixture including the first raw material particles and the second raw material particles is provided only in the evaporation unit of the container”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on Hou. Hou teaches it is known to form the sintered body layer only in an evaporation portion of a heat pipe. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763