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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy et al (US 4,724,824) in view of Varanasi et al (US 2012/0051489).
With respect to claim 1, McCoy discloses the vapor generator claimed including a marked surface (100) in a portion of a surface of the vapor generator wherein the marked surface further includes a groove or a pression (114/116) formed thereon. But, McCoy does not show a recessed and protruded structure inside the groove wherein the recessed and protruded structure includes a plurality of recesses and a plurality of protrusions that are alternatively disposed in a planar arrangement at a predetermined interval wherein a minimum temperature at which the Leindenfrost phenomenon occurs is at least 5º C higher than an area other than the marked surface.
Varanasi discloses it is known to provide a steam/vapor generating surface including a groove within which a plurality of recesses and a plurality of protrusions are alternatively disposed in a planar arrangement at a predetermined interval (as illustrated in Figure 2B) wherein Varanasi discloses that such marked/textured surface results in an increased Leidenfrost temperature (also, see Abstract). Varanasi further discloses that the size, height and spacing of the microscale structure (i.e., the recess/protrusion structure) selected maximize or control the Leidenfrost temperature (para 0004).
In view of Varanasi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCoy with the marked surface having the groove which further includes a recessed and protruded structure to increase a minimum temperature at which a Leidenfrost phenomenon occurs than non-marked surface so that vaporization of the liquid (e.g., water) can be more effectively vaporized wherein the increase of 5º C or higher would depend on the dimension of the marked surface having the recessed and protrusion structure as the vapor generator is processed in its normal and usual operation (MPEP 2112.02). It is also noted the claimed temperature is related as a property or function of the marked surface that would be inherent as the structure of prior art (i.e., of Varanasi) is substantially identical to that of the claimed structure (also, see MPEP 2112.01).
With respect to claim 2, Varanasi discloses the recessed and protruded structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed structure wherein a light absorption rata as claimed would be a property or function that is presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
With respect to claim 3, Varanasi discloses the recessed and protruded structure that would be a hydrophilic surface (as having substantially the same structure as claimed) wherein Varanasi further discloses for a vapor wetting angle or contact surface that can be less than 90 degrees or 50 degrees (see claims 32-34 of Varanasi), and the recited angle of at most 60 degree would have been obvious or inherent range as Varanasi discloses the substantially same recessed and protruded structure as that of the claimed structure. MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 4, McCoy discloses that the marked surface of the vapor generator is made of metal (e.g., aluminum).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Varanasi discloses for the textured surface that is process by laser processing (para 004) wherein such laser processing would have been obvious means by which the groove of McCoy would have been formed. It is also noted that the claim 5 is a product by process wherein the patentability of the product does not depend on the process/method by which the product is made. MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 7, Varanasi further discloses that the recessed and protruded structure can be provided in an area outside the groove (also, see 2B).
With respect to claim 8, McCoy discloses a vapor chamber included in the vapor generator. Also, see Figure 3.
With respect to claim 9, McCoy discloses the method claimed including a vapor generator with a marked surface on a portion of a surface of a base material (100) of the vapor generator including at least one groove or depression (114/116) formed on the base material. But, McCoy does not show a recessed and protruded structure inside the groove wherein the recessed and protruded structure includes a plurality of recesses and a plurality of protrusions that are alternatively disposed in a planar arrangement at a predetermined interval wherein a minimum temperature at which the Leindenfrost phenomenon occurs is at least 5º C higher than an area other than the marked surface.
Varanasi discloses it is known to provide a steam/vapor generating surface including a groove within which a plurality of recesses and a plurality of protrusions are alternatively disposed in a planar arrangement at a predetermined interval (as illustrated in Figure 2B) that is less than a width of the groove wherein Varanasi discloses that such marked/textured surface results in an increased Leidenfrost temperature (also, see Abstract). Varanasi further discloses that the size, height and spacing of the microscale structure (i.e., the recess/protrusion structure) selected maximize or control the Leidenfrost temperature (para 0004).
In view of Varanasi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt McCoy with the marked surface having the groove which further includes a recessed and protruded structure to increase a minimum temperature at which a Leidenfrost phenomenon occurs than non-marked surface so that vaporization of the liquid (e.g., water) can be more effectively vaporized wherein the increase of 5º C or higher would depend on the dimension of the marked surface having the recessed and protrusion structure as the vapor generator is processed in its normal and usual operation (MPEP 2112.02).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sloan et al (US 6,299,076) discloses for a steam/vapor generator that is known to incur Leidenfrost phenomenon/effects.
Chrisman (US 3,721,802) and Youhouse (US 2,652,645) disclose for a steam/vapor generator with a marked surface having at least one groove.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights