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/Restrictions
Claims 14-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/04/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/04/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13, 28, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strehlow et al. US 11,035,622 Bl in view of Wright US 20180103557 A1.
Re claim 1, Strehlow et al. teach a thermal transfer device comprising, at least one layer of an metal film (col 9 lines 35-56, 12, 14, 16), and a working fluid (col 8 lines 20-21), wherein the metal film is configured to enclose a volume (figs 2-3), and the volume is sealed such that the working fluid is disposed within the volume, and the working fluid is configured to absorb, transfer, transport, and dissipate heat (col 8).
Strehlow et al. fail to explicitly teach amorphous metal.
Wright teach amorphous metal (para 64) to us a metal well known to be used in casings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include amorphous metal as taught by Wright in the Strehlow et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a frame with structural strength and ideal heat transfer properties.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form one layer of an metal film out of amorphous metal for increased heat transfer in a vapor chamber seeting, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 2, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the volume is pressurized or evacuated to form a vacuum gap (col 9, noting a sealed volume naturally is pressurized).
Re claim 3, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the enclosed volume is selectively sealed in a pattern to form a fluid path or provide tensile strength (figs 2-3).
Re claim 4, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the device is configured to flex without permanent deformation (figs 2-3 ,noting material is naturally capable of having some flex).
Re claim 5, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the device is configured with bellows, slits, tabs, voids, bends, or various other geometrical shapes that enhance elasticity, flexibility, stiffness, or isolate vibration (figs 2-3).
Re claim 6, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the device is further configured with bellows, slits, tabs, voids, bends, or various other geometrical shapes to adapt the device to or be positioned around a structure (24, 22) or allow another structure to pass through it (figs 2-3).
Re claim 7, Strehlow et al. teach further comprising a wicking material (22) that is disposed within the volume.
Re claim 9, Strehlow et al. teach further comprising at least one material layer (22).
Re claim 11, Strehlow et al. teach further comprising at least one material coating wherein the at least one material coating (22 or 30/18b) is affixed to at least one surface and the material coatings modifies the hydrophobic, hydrophilic, corrosion, or emissivity property of the at least one surface.
Re claim 12, Strehlow et al. teach comprising at least one structure (22 or ) configured to support the voluminous configuration, provide compressive strength, prevent collapse, improve thermal performance, improve fluid flow, or form a fluid path.
Re claim 13, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the at least one structure can be configured by plastically or elastically deforming to adopt a conformal shape (noting materials have a flexibility when stress is applied).
Re claim 28, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the device is configured as a heat pipe or vapor chamber.
Re claim 31, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the wicking material is patterned onto the amorphous metal film (figs).
Re claim 32, Strehlow et al. teach wherein the at least one material coating is configured as a wick (col 9).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strehlow et al. US 11,035,622 Bl in view of Wright US 20180103557 A1 and Endoh US 20200033068 A1 .
Re claim 8, Strehlow et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach catalyst.
Endoh teach further comprising a catalyst that is disposed within the volume to create a porous layer (para 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include catalyst as taught by Endoh in the Strehlow et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for porosity to aid in heat exchange and pumping.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strehlow et al. US 11,035,622 Bl in view of Wright US 20180103557 A1 and Black US 20030235770 A1.
Re claim 10, Strehlow et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach electrical ground plate.
Black teach the amorphous metal film is further configured as an electrical ground plate (para 11) to add functionality with a thin metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include electrical ground plate as taught by Black in the Strehlow et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for different intended use applications with substrate.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strehlow et al. US 11,035,622 Bl in view of Wright US 20180103557 A1 and Carbone US 20190324507 A1.
Re claim 29, Strehlow et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach oscillating heat pipe.
Carbone teach the fluid path is configured as an oscillating heat pipe such that the fluid path oscillates between a first point and a second point (para 24) to employ a heat pipe design well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include oscillating heat pipe as taught by Carbone in the Strehlow et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for fluid paths to oscillate for heat removal.
Re claim 30, Strehlow et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach oscillating heat pipe.
Carbone teach the fluid path is configured as an oscillating heat pipe such that the fluid path oscillates between a first point and a second point (para 24) to employ a heat pipe design well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include oscillating heat pipe as taught by Carbone in the Strehlow et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for fluid paths to oscillate for heat removal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150176930 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights