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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/25, 3/5/26, 4/30/26 are being considered by the examiner.
Applicants should note that the large number of references and NPL 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 6-10 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 includes the amended limitation of “the porous material that includes pores that are sufficiently small to prevent vapor bubbles from penetrating into the inner volume that substantially block liquid flow.” which is not supported in the original filing and thus is new matter. The specification never discusses the pores and bubbles together.
Amended claim 12 includes the amended limitation of “a gap between the outer surface of the inner tube and the interior surface of the outer tube that prevents vapor bubbles from blocking liquid flow into the liquid channel” which is not supported in the original filing and thus is new matter. This is not what is taught by the original specification which teaches “A gap between the outer surface of the inner tube and the interior surface of the outer tube may, for example, prevent vapor bubbles from blocking the entire liquid flow in the liquid channel” in paragraph 0008. As originally written, it would block the entire liquid flow instead of just partially blocking some of the flow as written. This is new matter.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are rejected for dependence on the one of the above rejected claims.
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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially block 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 that includes pores that are sufficiently small to prevent vapor bubbles from penetrating into the inner volume that block 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 or 1000 nano or 1000 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 from one or more of the above rejected claims.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (U.S. PGPub 2006/0283574) in view of Roper et al. (U.S. Patent 9,835,383).
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).
Huang does not teach the porous material that includes pores that are sufficiently small to prevent vapor bubbles from penetrating into the inner volume that substantially block liquid flow. Roper teaches a mesh that prevents vapor bubbles from moving through the porous layer (Col. 17, ln 61-col. 18, ln 36) such that the liquid flow isn’t blocked (Col. 10, ln 63-Col. 11, ln 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Huang to include the pore sizing of Roper as claimed, the motivation would be to provide a have high heat flux (Col. 10, ln 63-Col. 11, ln 27).
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).
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 Roper et al. (U.S. Patent 9,835,383), an in further 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 motivation 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 Roper et al. (U.S. Patent 9,835,383), and in further 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amendments overcoming the 102/103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that while some of the 112b rejections were eliminated by the amendments not all were, further there were no specific arguments regarding those rejections.
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 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.
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 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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights