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 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4,8-11, 13-16 and 18-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-21 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 § 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 1-4,8-11, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer IV et al. (US 20120279687) in view of Hoffman Paul et al. (US 20090025910A1). Meyer IV et al discloses (figures 1 and 3) a heat pipe comprising a container (10) being a tubular body, the container having an end surface of one end portion and an end surface of another end portion, the end surfaces each being sealed; a wick structure (20) provided inside the container; and a working fluid enclosed inside the container, wherein the wick structure includes a first wick portion (21) and a second wick portion (22) in at least one cross section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the container, the second wick portion (22) being integral with the first wick portion, the second wick portion extending outward from the first wick portion, the second portion being thinner than the first wick portion; and the second wick portion includes a flat portion extending in a direction perpendicular to a height direction of an internal space of the container (see figure A). Meyer further discloses (figure A) that an end of the second wick portion is not in contact with an inner surface of the container facing the end of the second wick portion (the end of the second wick portion is spaced from the inner surface of the container facing the end of the second wick portion) ; the flat portion extends from the first wick portion toward the inner surface over a predetermined length (length of the flat section) while maintaining a predetermined thickness. (the predetermined thickness is shown as height of second wick portion, shown in figure A). Meyer IV et al. further discloses (figure 3 and A) that in the one cross section, the wick structure has a gradual change portion between a top portion of the first wick portion and the flat portion, the gradual change portion being a portion in which thickness of the wick structure continuously reduces in a direction perpendicular to the height direction of the internal space of the container.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer IV does not disclose that the average particle size of the powder in the first wick portion and that of the second wick portion are different. Hoffman et al. discloses (figures 15A or figure 18) a heat pipe that has a wick comprising a first and second wick portions (12’,12) that has different average particle sizes or the size of the particles decreases or increase with distance for a purpose achieving the boiling and fluid flow properties as desired. (paragraph 93 and 96). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Hoffman’s teaching in Meyer’s device for a purpose of achieving the boiling and fluid flow properties as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Meyer IV et al. discloses (figure 3 and figure A) that the first wick portion (21) has a thickness of 50% or more of a height of the internal space of the container, and the second wick portion (22) has a thickness of less than 50% of the height of the internal space of the container. Regarding claim 3, Meyer IV et al further discloses (figure 3) that at least partial area of the container has a flattened portion subjected to flatting processing (flat heat pipe shown in figure 3)..
Regarding claim 4, Meyer IV et al. discloses (figure 3 and figure A) that the flattened portion includes one inner surface and another inner surface facing the one inners surface in the height direction of the internal space of the container, and in the one cross section, the first wick portion has a top portion in contact with the one inner surface and a bottom portion in contact with the inner surface.
Regarding claims 8-11, Meyer IV et al. discloses (figure 3 and A) in the one cross section, a ratio of a width of the second wick portion with respect to a sum of the second wick portion and a width from the end of the second wick portion to an inner surface of the container is 50% or more.
Regarding claim 13, Meyer IV et al. discloses a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the second wick portion (22) to a cross sectional area of the first wick portion (21) is 1% or more and 50% or less basing on the geometrical relationship shown in figure A.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 3 with limitations shown.
Regarding claim 19, Meyer IV discloses (paragraph 25) that the wick structure is a sintered body of metal powder.
Regarding claim 20, Mayer IV discloses (figure A) that the gradual change portion is no formed on the second wick portion. (the second portion is the flat portion)
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 14- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer IV et al. (US 20120279687A1) and Hoffman et al. in view of Sasaki Y (WO 2017115772A1). Regarding claims 14-16, Meyer IV et al. and Hoffman et al. substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the container has an evaporator portion and a condenser portion, and a thickness of the flat portion in the evaporation portion is thicker than a thickness of the flat portion in the condenser portion, the condenser portion being thermally connected to a heat exchanger. Sasaki discloses (figures 6a-6c) a flat heat pipe that has an evaporation portion and a condenser portion, the evaporation portion being thermally connected to a heating element (102), and the condenser portion being connected to a heat exchanger (101), wherein a thickness of the flat portion in the evaporation (figure 6a,6c) is thicker than a thickness of the flat portion in the condenser portion (figure 6a and 6b) for a purpose of providing an excellent heat transport properties and low thermal resistance as desired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Sasaki’s teaching in the combination device of Myer IV and Hoffman for a purpose of providing an excellent heat transport properties and low thermal resistance as desired.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer IV et al. (US 20120279687A1) and Hoffman et al. in view of Kaibuchi et al. (JP 2019039604A). Meyer IV and Hoffman et al. substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that in the one cross section, a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the internal of the container not occupied by the wick structure with respect to a cross-sectional area of the wick structure is 15% or more and 65% or less. Kaibuchi discloses (figure 2) a heat pipe (1) that has the ratio of a cross-sectional area of the internal space (13) of the container not occupied by the wick structure (11) with respect to a cross sectional area of the wick structure is not particular limited, for example the ratio can be from 40% to 200% for a purpose of allowing the vapor flow to flow inside the heat pipe to perform the heat exchange as desired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kaibuchi et’s teaching in the combination device of Meyer and Hoffman for a purpose of allowing the vapor flow to flow inside the heat pipe to perform the heat exchange as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record either taken singularly or in combination fail to disclose the invention as claimed. In particular, references to Myer IV and Hoffman are the closest prior art but fail to disclose that the first wick portion and the second wick portion are made of powder of different material types in combination with the average size of the powder in the first wick portion and that of the second wick portion are different.
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 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