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 .
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210131753 A1) in view of Journal of Membrane Science (JMS; attached NPL).
Regarding claim 2:
Yang discloses a capillary-driven condensation surface for a condenser surface (a substrate, [0013]) comprising: a thermally conducti e porous wick ([0091, [0097]; and a porous hydrophobic membrane on the wick ([0013] and Figs. 12-14).
Although Yang discloses wherein the porous hydrophobic membrane may be substituted for equivalent (see [0106]); Yang does not disclose wherein the porous hydrophobic membrane is electrospun polymer.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant (see applicant abstract and JMS introduction), electrospun polymer hydrophobic membrane are well known in the art (see JMS introduction).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Yang with the porous hydrophobic membrane is electrospun polymer; as taught by JMS.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided exceptional thermal stability, high chemical resistance, and superior mechanical flexibility as recognized by the art.
Regarding claim 3, the thermally conductive porous wick is
configured to be in thermal contact with the condenser surface [0096]. Regarding claim 4, the
thermally conductive porous wick includes a metal mesh [0097]. Regarding claim 5, the
thermally conductive porous wick is a copper mesh [0097]. Regarding claims 6 and 7, the
thermally conductive porous wick has a porosity of at least 30% ([0161] And Fig. 21). Regarding claim 8, the thermally conductive porous wick has an average pore size of at least 1 micron
([0185] and Fig. 29). Regarding claim 9, the porous hydrophobic membrane is bonded to a
surface of the porous wick by solidification (the entire device becomes solidified, [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, the porous hydrophobic membrane has an average pore size of less than 10
microns (5 microns, Fig. 29). Regarding claim 11, the porous hydrophobic membrane has an
average pore size greater than 10 nanometers ([0185] and Fig. 29). Regarding claim 12, the
porous hydrophobic membrane includes an inorganic material (see rejection of claim 2). Regarding claim 13, the porous hydrophobic membrane further includes a hydrophobic coating. Regarding claim 17, the
thermally conductive porous wick includes microchannels [0013]. Regarding claim 19, the rows
or bands are arranged substantially perpendicular to a lengthwise axis of the condenser surface.
Regarding claim 21, Yang as modified shows the device including a thin, highly permeable, thermally
conductive porous wick; and a porous, robust, and intrinsically hydrophobic electrospun polymer membrane attached on top of the wick. Regarding claim 22, since the device of Yang as modified shows the device comprises the recited structure, the recited method is covered by Yang. Regarding claim
23, the condensation surface is secured to a condenser element (the substrate). Yang shows the method of claim 24 (see above). Regarding claim 25, the thermally conductive porous wick is cleaned prior to placing the porous hydrophobic membrane (see Yang, [0103-0106]; and rejection of claim 2).
Claim 14 would have involved a mere change is the material of a device, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the device will still function properly with the arrangement. Claims 15 and 16 would have involved mere changes in the size of a material which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 18, the microchannels are arranged in rows or bands, and the recited spacing would have involved a mere change in the distance between parts, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the prior art device already shows spacing between the microchannels. Regarding claim 20, the surface further comprises drain ports (microgaps) adjacent to each of the rows or bands [0116]. Regarding claim 26, the heat treating step would have been a matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection applied in this rejection.
The claims have been rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Yang (US 2021/0131753 A1) and the Journal of Membrane Science (JMS; attached NPL). See elaborated rejection above.
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights