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 without traverse of species A-III (fig. 3A-3E) in the reply filed on 11/6/25 is acknowledged. Applicant stated that no claims were withdrawn based upon this election in this response.
Claims 1-16 were stated to read on the elected species, resulting in other claims being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicants claim numbering were misnumbered and applicant corrected this numbering in the supplemental response of 12/2/25. Applicant did not comment on their restriction and thus the restriction election is treated as having been applicable to the corrected claim numbering later submitted. Claims 17-22 are withdrawn by applicant based upon this.
Upon review claim 8 appears to be directed to non-elected species A-IV and is thus properly withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/21/25, 7/24/25, 9/4/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Further, over 400 references have been submitted on the IDS. Applicants should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the Examiner “in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the Examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search.” See MPEP § 609.05(b). Care should be taken in the future to only submit those references which are relevant to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The claims 4-7, 14-15 include the claim elements “asynchronous layer” (both a first and second). This term does not appear to have a standard meaning as the term “asynchronous” per the dictionary (seewww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asynchronous) means : 1) not simultaneous or concurrent in time OR 2) of, used in, or being digital (see digital sense 4) communication (as between computers) in which there is no timing requirement for transmission and in which the start of each character is individually signaled by the transmitting device. Neither of these seem a clear structural requirement/description for a layer in a heat pipe. While applicant may be a their own lexicographer applicant must clearly define their meaning for the term, which does not appear to occur in the specification (the closest appears to be paragraph 0056) which does not clearly define/redefine the term. Thus the term will be treated as merely a naming convention and not imparting in specific structure requirement.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should properly be “the porous inorganic”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
All claims 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for “the porous material prevents vapor from penetrating into the inner volume and substantially blocking liquid flow” as it is unclear if this requires preventing any and all vapor from penetrating or if it prevents penetrating vapor from blocking liquid flow, and if so, how so. It is unclear if it prevents any blocking of liquid flow or prevents it to s certain clear degree (see the 112 rejections of “substantially” below). The claim will be examined as it prevents the complete blocking of liquid flow.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially blocking liquid flow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be clear to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the amount/degree of liquid flow blocked to read on the limitation. It is noted that applicant attempts to define “substantially” in paragraph 0095, but this definition is generic and it is unclear how such would be read into the claim as written. The claim will be examined as “the porous material prevents vapor from penetrating into the inner volume and stopping liquid flow”.
Claims 2 and 13 are indefinite for the limitation the outer tube comprises a porous inorganic material. It is unclear how this occurs the outer tube is “sealed” and yet is supposed to be “porous”. One skilled in the art is not made clear on how the outer tube is both porous and sealed as claimed, applicants’ specification mentions the outer tube being porous, but gives no explanation for how or why this would be. This confusion may be that applicant meant to describe a layer on the inner tube but the claim and specification do not make this clear and in fact counter this several times in describing the sealing of the outer tube. The limitation will be read as being applicable only to the inner tube for this claim and the dependent claims from it.
Claims 4 , 10, and 15 are indefinite for the limitation of “micro/nanoparticles” as the claim provides no numerical range/value/identifier to this size requirement. It is unclear if what range is claim or specific size (such as 1 nano or 1 micro), further it is unclear the scale (is it nano meters, nano inches, etc.). The claim will be examined as merely requiring the use of particles.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it is unclear what the limitation is of the claim, specifically “a first plurality of wires … a second plurality of wires, wherein the first plurality of wires … has a cross-sectional dimension that is half the cross-sectional dimension of the second plurality of wires”. This makes it unclear if the size comparison is individual wire sizes or the grouping of wire sizes. The claim will be examined as reading on the individual wiring sizes.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for dependence form one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang (U.S. PGPub 2006/0283574).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a tube-in-tube heat pipe (element 1) comprising: an outer tube (element 10) having a cylindrical shape that extends from a first end to a second end (per fig. 4), the outer tube having a hollow interior (per fig. 2-4), the outer tube sealed at the first end and at the second end (per fig. 2; one end rounded crating seal, other capped sealing); and an inner tube (element 30) having a cylindrical shape that extends from a first end and to a second end (per fig. 4; examiner notes that extending from end to end does not require contacting the ends, just reaching the end area thus the claim is read on), the inner tube disposed within the hollow interior of the outer tube (per fig. 2-4), the inner tube comprising a porous material (the “net” element 30 has holes thus making it porous) surrounding an inner volume (per fig. 2-4), the inner volume of the inner tube is charged with liquid (per fig. 4, layer of liquid on bottom), the porous material prevents vapor from penetrating into the inner volume and substantially blocking liquid flow (per fig. 4, flow occurs and thus is not blocked by the vapor reading on the limitation – see the 112b above).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the inner tube comprises a porous inorganic material (para. 0018 made of “cupric” – which is a copper material, which is inorganic; the porous part has already be covered as claimed previously and is due to net structure).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches wherein porous inorganic material comprises porous copper (para. 0018 made of “cupric” – which is a copper material, which is inorganic; the porous part has already be covered as claimed previously and is due to net structure).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the porous inorganic material is formed by sintering particles (see 112 above) into the inorganic material (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches the inner tube comprises a first asynchronous layer of mesh (element 32), and a second asynchronous layer of mesh (element 31) that is disposed within the first asynchronous layer of mesh (per fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches a gap between the first asynchronous layer and an inner surface of the outer tube has an average gap width that is less than about 0.08 mm (per fig. 3; note that the requirement as written allows for no gap as 0 reads on it, thus the contact between the net and the wall protrusion would read on this).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches either or both the first asynchronous layer or the second asynchronous layer includes a portion along the length of the inner tube that includes particles (the sintered particles of the abstract; note the 112 above).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches a tube-in-tube heat pipe (element 1) comprising: an outer tube (element 10) having a cylindrical shape that extends from a first end to a second end (per fig. 2-4), the outer tube having a hollow interior (per fig. 2-4), the outer tube sealed at the first end and at the second end per fig. 2; one end rounded crating seal, other capped sealing); and an inner tube (element 30) having a cylindrical shape that extends from a first end and to a second end (per fig. 4; examiner notes that extending from end to end does not require contacting the ends, just reaching the end area thus the claim is read on), the inner tube disposed within the hollow interior of the outer tube (per fig. 2-4), the inner tube comprising a porous material surrounding an inner volume ( per fig. 2-4, the “net” element 30 has holes thus making it porous); wherein: the tube-in-tube heat pipe is charged with a liquid (per fig. 4, layer of liquid on bottom) ; a liquid channel is formed between the outer surface of the inner tube and the interior surface of the outer tube (per fig. 4); and a gap between the outer surface of the inner tube and the interior surface of the outer tube (space between the net outside and the base of the inner wall where the protrusion of the wall start – note as this is a different claim this may be interpreted differently as it read on it in this form) that prevents vapor bubbles from blocking the entire liquid flow in the liquid channel (per fig. 4, flow occurs and thus is not blocked by the vapor reading on the limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches the inner tube comprises a porous inorganic material (para. 0018 made of “cupric” – which is a copper material, which is inorganic; the porous part has already be covered as claimed previously and is due to net structure).
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches wherein porous inorganic material comprises porous copper (para. 0018 made of “cupric” – which is a copper material, which is inorganic; the porous part has already be covered as claimed previously and is due to net structure).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches the porous inorganic material is formed by sintering particles (see 112 above) into the inorganic material (abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (U.S. PGPub 2006/0283574) in view of Zhang (U.S. PGPub 2015/0219401).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Huang does not expressly teach the inner tube comprises organic material coated with an inorganic material.
Zhang teaches wick material of heat pipes comprises organic material coated with an inorganic material (para. 0011). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Huang to include the wick structure of Zhang where the “cupric” is applied toa organic material as taught by Zhang, the motivoant would be to provide a suitable capillary attraction in the structure (para. 0011).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (U.S. PGPub 2006/0283574) in view of Valenzuela (U.S. PGPub 2005/0230085).
Regarding claim 11, Huang does not teach the inner tube comprises a porous polymer formed by dissolving a copolymer, track etching, or spin-casing.
The use of polymer made by etching (made various ways) is well-known in the art as shown by Valenzuela (para. 0041). Thus it would have been obvious at the time of filing to use such in the forming of the net of Huang, the motivoant would be the use of readily available and well-known materials for manufacture of the heat pipe.
Examiner further notes that the limitations of formed by dissolving a copolymer, track etching, or spin-casing is a product-by-process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is potentially allowable as no prior art was found to read on the limitation. The claim is currently under various 112 rejections and final allowability will be dependent on the resolution of those rejections and search and consideration of those resolutions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kare et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0174701), Chang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0020269), Moon et al. (U.S. Patent 6,619,384) all teach heat pipes with internal pipes similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3763