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 of Invention I (Claims 1-18 and 26-28) and Heat Pipe Species C (Figures 5A-5C) in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant's election with traverse of Heat Pipe Connection Species S7 (Figure 10C) in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species S5-S7 should be examined together since each species is directed towards spaced apart heat pipe from the heat source . This is found persuasive and Species S5-S7 will be examined together as obvious variants. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement between the remaining species of S1-S4 , the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)) . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025. Applicant asserts claim 15 reads on the elected species. However, claim 15 recites “ the at least one heat pipe is bonded to the heat-producing component via a bonding layer ”, wherein the elected Species S5-S7 is directed towards an indirect bonding via the substrate. Accordingly, claim 15 is additionally withdrawn from consideration. Status of Claims The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 11/07/2025 are as follows: Claims 29-33 are newly added; Claims 1-33 are pending; Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18-25 are withdrawn from consideration; Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 13 , 14, 16, 17, and 26-33 are being examined. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits ( i.e. “promoting effective heat transfer and robust bonding” ) of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f). “Wicking structure” of claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) since wicking structure is an art recognized term for generating capillary forces for moving liquid in a heat pipe and thus the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. “Heat producing component” of claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) since heat producing component is an art recognized term for electrical or computer devices that generate heat on heat pipes and thus the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 7 , 16, and 17 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 7 and 17 recite “W particles, Mo particles” , wherein it is unclear what the abbreviations “W” and “Mo” specifically refer to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite. The applicant should refrain from utilizing abbreviations in claims. For examination purposes, “Mo” will be interpreted as referring to molybdenum and “W” will be interpreted as referring to Tungsten. Claim 16 recites “ the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a top surface of the heat-producing component, one or more heat pipes are bonded to a side surface of the heat-producing component, the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a bottom surface of the heat-producing component and the at least one heat pipe extends through the electrically insulating substrate, or any combination thereof ”. It is unclear what the scope of the “or any combination thereof” encompasses. The claim appears to recite all the various combinations as a single combination and thus fails to recite any element in the alternative. Does “or any combination thereof” encompass single heat pipe at a single location, or does the limitation require at least two heat pipes? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as reciting a list of alternatives, wherein a single heat pipe is considered a “combination thereof”. 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, 5 , 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 29, and 31 -33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) . Re Claim 1. Chen teaches a heat pipe (20) comprising (Figure 1; Paragraphs 21, 24-27) : a structure having a sealed outer shell (22,21) comprising a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier (Figures 1 -3; Paragraphs 2 4 -27 . Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier . Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes ) ; and a working fluid movable within an internal space (26) defined within the sealed outer shell, the internal space comprising a wicking structure (23) interposed between the sealed outer shell (22) and a hollow core (26) , or a flow channel defined upon a surface of the sealed outer shell (Figures 1 -3; Paragraphs 27-28) . Re Claim 9. Chen teaches a printed circuit board (PCB) (Figure 1) comprising: a heat-producing component (30) located upon or at least partially recessed within an electrically insulating substrate (11) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 21, 24-27) ; and at least one heat pipe (20) in thermal communication with the heat-producing component, the at least one heat pipe comprising (Figures 1-2) : a structure having a sealed outer shell (22, 21) comprising a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) modifier ( Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 24-27. Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes ) ; and a working fluid movable within an internal space (26) defined within the sealed outer shell, the internal space comprising wicking structure (23) interposed between the sealed outer shell (22) and a hollow core (26) , or a flow channel defined upon a surface of the sealed outer shell (Figures 2-3; Paragraphs 27-28 , 31 ) . Re Claim 2 & 10 . Chen teaches the copper composite is formed through consolidation of copper nanoparticles with micron-size copper particles and the CTE modifier (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 ; Chen teaches a copper alloy, wherein the alloy is considered a coefficient of thermal expansion modifier. Further, the copper is comprised of copper particles of all sizes ) . Re Claim 5 & 13 . Chen teaches a complementary part contacts the sealed outer shell and seals an upper surface of the flow channel (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 . The heat pipe is a sealed structure, thus a complementary part seals the heat pipe. Additionally, Figure 1 illustrates the heat pipe 20 inset into the substrate 11, thereby forming a complementary part that seals the outer shell of the heat pipe ) . Re Claim 7 & 17 . Chen teaches the CTE modifier comprises carbon fibers, W particles, Mo particles, diamond particles, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, carbon nanotubes, graphene, or any combination thereof (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 , wherein paragraph 25 teaches the CTE is carbon nanotubes, which is interpreted as a carbon fiber ) . Re Claim 16. Chen teaches the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a top surface of the heat-producing component, one or more heat pipes are bonded to a side surface of the heat-producing component, the at least one heat pipe is bonded to a bottom surface of the heat-producing component and the at least one heat pipe extends through the electrically insulating substrate, or any combination thereof (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 ; Figure 1 illustrates the at least one heat pipe extends through the electrically insulating substrate ) . Re Claim 29. Chen teaches the flow channel is defined upon the surface of the sealed outer shell and is a closed loop that extends between a hot end and a cold end of the heat pipe (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28) . Re Claim 31. Chen teaches the complementary part is formed from a copper composite that comprises copper nanoparticles, micron-sized copper particles, and a CTE modifier (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 ; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material ) . Re Claim 32. Chen teaches t he complementary part has a CTE that at least substantially matches the CTE of the sealed outer shell (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 ; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material ) . Re Claim 33. Chen teaches the sealed outer shell and the complementary part are sealed with a metallurgical bond, wherein the metallurgical bond is formed from at least partial fusion of a copper nanoparticle paste composition disposed between the sealed outer shell and the complementary part (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28 ; Chen teaches an integral heat pipe assembly, and thus all components are formed of the same material ) . 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 6, 14, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) . Re Claim 6 & 14 . Chen teaches the copper is formed of nano sized particles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach the copper composite has a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the copper composite to have a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30% , 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the copper composite with a uniform nanoporosity of about 2% to about 30% , 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). Re Claim 27. Chen teaches the copper is formed of nano sized particles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach the copper composite comprises about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight and about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight and about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight , 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight and about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight , 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 having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the copper composite comprise about 30% to about 98% copper nanoparticles by weight and about 0.1 to about 15% micron-scale particles by weight , 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 28. Chen teaches the copper is formed of nano sized particles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size , 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). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have at least a portion of the copper nanoparticles are in a range of from about 1 to about 10 nm in size and the remaining copper nanoparticles are in a range of 25 to about 50 nm in size , 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). Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Nakako (US2023/0356294A1) . Re Claim 26. Chen teaches copper nanoparticles (Paragraph 25) but fails to specifically teach the copper nanoparticles have a surfactant coating containing one or more surfactants on their surface. However, Nakako teaches it is known to add surfactants to copper paste to improve wetting of the paste (Paragraph 64). Therefore, in view of Nakako's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactant coating to the copper nanoparticles of Chen in order to improve the wetting of the composition. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactant coating to the copper nanoparticles of Chen since it is known that surfactant can be used to reduce the surface tension of paste, which is beneficial to the stable existence of particles in copper paste . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add surfactants to the copper, 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. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2006/0151153A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Roper (US9835383B1) . Re Claim 30. Chen teaches a valve connected to the flow channel (Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 24-28). However, Roper teaches a filling port (40) of a heat pipe (100) comprises a valve (Figure 1; Column 10 lines 19-36). Roper teaches the benefit of the valve is to temporary seal the filling port so that the amount of working fluid can be adjusted after testing. Therefore, in view of Roper's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a valve to Chen in order to temporary seal the filling port so that the amount of working fluid can be adjusted after testing, thereby achieving optimal working conditions for the heat pipe. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5760 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jianying Atkisson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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