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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C (Figures 4A-B) in the reply filed on 10/1/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is improper to rely on figures for the species requirement and request where in the MPEP such guidance is outlined. This is not found persuasive because the use of figures for species requirements is the long-standing established method of identifying species as clearly outlined in the MPEP. The applicant should review MPEP 809.02(a) bullet point (B) which clearly states “(B) Clearly identify each (or in aggravated cases at least exemplary ones) of the disclosed species, to which claims are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, the mechanical means, the particular material, or other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the species cannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted. Provide reasons why the species are independent or distinct”. Since MPEP 809.02(a) outlines that species requirements should be identified by figures, the applicants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/1/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 10/1/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 14-18 are being examined.
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 § 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are 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.
Claims 2 and 12 do not contain a period at the end of the claim. Thus, it is unclear if the claim is complete or if additional limitations are missing. Since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite. It is also noted that while claims 10, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration, claims 10, 19, and 20 similarly do not contain a period at the end of the claim and thus should be corrected also.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US5704415).
Re Claim 1. Suzuki teaches an oscillating heat pipe (2) flushing duct system (open ends of 1) (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 7 lines 1-5 and 19-23 teaches a serpentine flow path inside a heat pipe, which is considered an oscillating heat pipe),
said system formed in at least one of a body top face, a bottom face and at least one side face of an OHP device (Figures 1-2 illustrates a three-dimensional body 2 that has a top face, bottom face, and multiple sides, wherein the system is within the body),
the flushing duct system fluidly connecting one or more of a plurality of OHP channels (1) formed internally within the OHP device to an ambient environment of the device, the flushing duct system comprising at least one welding receptacle (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Ends of body 2 receive plate 3 for sealing the assembly, wherein plate 3 is welded to body 2. Thus, the ends of 2 that are connected by welding to 3 are considered the welding receptacle since it receives welding. The applicant has not provided any specific details of what constitutes a welding receptacle and thus the limitation has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of a surface that receives welding. Prior to plate 3 being attached, the channels 1 in the body 2 are open to the ambient environment which is therefore capable of being flushed).
Re Claim 11. Suzuki teaches an oscillating heat pipe device (2) (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 7 lines 1-5 and 19-23 teaches a serpentine flow path inside a heat pipe, which is considered an oscillating heat pipe), said device comprising:
a body having a top face, a bottom face and at least one side face (Figures 1-2 illustrates a three-dimensional body 2 that has a top face, bottom face, and multiple sides, wherein the system is within the body);
a plurality of hollow OHP channels (1) formed internally within the body (2) (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45); and
a flushing duct system (open ends of 1) formed in at least one of the body top face, bottom face and at least one side face, the flushing duct system fluidly connecting one or more of the plurality of OHP channels to an ambient environment of the device, the flushing duct system comprising at least one welding receptacle (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Ends of body 2 receive plate 3 for sealing the assembly, wherein plate 3 is welded to body 2. Thus, the ends of 2 that are connected by welding to 3 are considered the welding receptacle since it receives welding. The applicant has not provided any specific details of what constitutes a welding receptacle and thus the limitation has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of a surface that receives welding. Prior to plate 3 being attached, the channels 1 in the body 2 are open to the ambient environment which is therefore capable of being flushed).
Re Claim 2 & 12. Suzuki teaches the flushing duct system is in-plane with the one or more OHP channels to which it is fluidly connected (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45).
Re Claim 4 & 14. Suzuki teaches each of the at least one welding receptacle comprises at least one of a welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate edge and at least one welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate sidewall (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Figures 2 and 13 specifically illustrates an arcuate edge and sidewall).
Re Claim 5 & 15. Suzuki teaches the at least one welding receptacle comprises a linear welding trough (space between body 2 and plate 3 will form a linear trough for welding material to collect) formed in one of the top face, the bottom face and the at least one side face of the OHP device such that the linear welding trough fluidly connects (prior to welding the space would be fluidly connected) with at least one of the plurality of OHP channels and wherein the linear welding trough comprises the at least one of a welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate edge and at least one welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate sidewall (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Figures 2 and 13 specifically illustrates an arcuate edge and sidewall).
Re Claim 6 & 16. Suzuki teaches the flushing duct system further comprises: at least one flush port (open end of 1) wherein each of the at least one flush port is fluidly connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of OHP channels (1) (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45); and the at least one welding receptacle comprises a linear welding trough (space between body 2 and plate 3 will form a linear trough for welding material to collect) formed in one of the top face, the bottom face and the at least one side face of the OHP device such that the linear welding trough fluidly connects (prior to welding the space would be fluidly connected) with the plurality of OHP channels via the at least one flush port and wherein the linear welding trough comprises the at least one of a welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate edge and at least one welding receptacle chamfered or arcuate sidewall (Figures 1-2, 4A-C, 15A-B; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Figures 2 and 13 specifically illustrates an arcuate edge and sidewall).
Re Claim 7 & 17. Suzuki teaches each of the at least one flush port comprises: a neck fluidly connected to the corresponding one of the plurality of OHP channels; and a mouth fluidly connecting the neck to the linear welding trough (Figures 1-2, 4A-C, 15A-B; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; The opening at the end of 1 is the mouth and the portion adjacent to the opening is the neck (generally denoted by the area 5), wherein the flow channel 1 connects to the neck).
Re Claim 8 & 18. Suzuki teaches the mouth of each of the at least one flush port comprises at least one of a mouth chamfered or arcuate edge and at least one mouth chamfered or arcuate sidewall (Figures 1-2, 4A-C; Column 6 lines 56-67, Column 7 lines 1-45; Figures 2 and 13 specifically illustrates an arcuate edge and sidewall).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C 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