DETAILED ACTION
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 1-2, 4, 6-10, 21-27, 29-30 are 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.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitations ‘coplanar’ in the application as filed. See MPEP 2163.04(I)(B).
The examiner could not locate an illustration of the wick being coplanar with both the upper and lower casings in the disclosure. Nor does the term “coplanar” appear in the specification.
In light of the above, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claims are interpreted below to mean that the wicks are parallel to the upper and lower casing.
Claims 2, 4, 6-10, 22-27, 29-30 depend from claims 1 and 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The entirety of claim 25 is found verbatim within claim 1, from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10, 21-24, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 2016/0076820) in view of Roper (US 9,835,383).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Lewis teaches top and bottom casings (310, 315) each comprising a polymer layer (Para. [0004]) encapsulated (hermetically sealed) within another layer (preferably copper; Para. [0004]); the top and bottom casings are hermetically sealed to each other (Para. [0014]-[0015]); a non-tubular wick region (e.g. 710, 715, Figs. 18b and 18c) is disposed between the top and bottom casings (Figs. 18b 18c), the wick has top and bottom layers which are parallel with the top and bottom casings (see annotated figure below and Fig. 18b) with the sides of the wick region capped (see annotated figure below) with a cap so that a meniscus does not form and proceed underneath the cap (no meniscus can proceed underneath the cap itself as it directly abuts 815); a working fluid (abstract) is disposed between the casings.
Lewis does not specify whether the wall is impermeable or not.
Roper teaches that it is old and well-known in the art to form walls that separate different portions of a capillary structure from porous materials (172) formed of sintered micro-nano particles (Col. 18:16) which resist vapor bubble passage (Col. 18:15-20) in order to prevent blockage of an arterial region with vapor bubbles (Col. 18:29-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the wall of Lewis from porous material extending the entire length of the arterial regions, as taught by Roper, in order to resist bubble ingress into the arterial regions.
Regarding claim 21, Lewis teaches a thermal management plane comprising: top and bottom casings (310, 315) each comprising a polymer layer (Para. [0004]) encapsulated (hermetically sealed) within another layer (preferably copper; Para. [0004]) bondable with copper (copper is bondable to itself); the top and bottom casings are hermetically sealed to each other (Para. [0014]-[0015]); a non- tubular wick region (e.g. 710, 715, Figs. 18b and 18c) is disposed between the top and bottom casings (Figs. 18b 18c), the wick has top and bottom layers which are parallel with the top and bottom casings (see annotated figure below and Fig. 18b) with the sides of the wick region capped (see annotated figure below) with a cap so that a meniscus does not form and proceed underneath the cap (no meniscus can proceed underneath the cap as it directly abuts 815); a working fluid (abstract) is disposed between the casings. Lewis does not specify whether the wall is impermeable or not.
Roper teaches that it is old and well-known in the art to form walls that separate different portions of a capillary structure from porous materials (172) formed of sintered micro-nano particles (Col. 18:16)) which resist vapor bubble passage (Col. 18:15-20) in order to prevent blockage of an arterial region with vapor bubbles (Col. 18:29-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the wall of Lewis from porous material extending the entire length of the arterial regions, as taught by Roper, in order to resist bubble ingress into the arterial regions.
Lewis further teaches that: the copper hermetic seal occurs at a temperature between 170 and 300 C (e.g. copper soldering temperatures; see Para. [0043]), per claims 2 and 22; the non-copper layer of the top casing comprises a polymer encapsulated with copper (see Para. [0004]), per claims 4, 23, and 24; the sealed top and bottom casings form an isolated vacuum cavity (Para. [0068]), per claims 9 and 29; the thermal management plane may have a thickness less than 200 microns (Para. [0060]), per claims 10 and 30; the cap is configured to restrict a meniscus from forming and proceeding underneath the cap (no meniscus can proceed underneath the cap as it directly abuts 815), per claim 27
PNG
media_image1.png
585
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 24, 26, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 2016/0076820) in view of Hou (US 2007/0107878).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Lewis teaches top and bottom casings (310, 315) each comprising a polymer layer (Para. [0004]) encapsulated (hermetically sealed) within another layer (preferably copper; Para. [0004]); the top and bottom casings are hermetically sealed to each other (Para. [0014]-[0015]); a non-tubular wick region (e.g. 710, 715, Figs. 18b and 18c) is disposed between the top and bottom casings (Figs. 18b 18c), the wick has top and bottom layers which are parallel with the top and bottom casings (see annotated figure below and Fig. 18b) with the sides of the wick region capped (see annotated figure below) with a cap so that a meniscus does not form and proceed underneath the cap (no meniscus can proceed underneath the cap itself as it directly abuts 815); a working fluid (abstract) is disposed between the casings.
Lewis does not specify whether the wall is impermeable or not. Hou teaches that it is old and well-known to form an impermeable barrier (300) between wicking layers and open arterial spaces (800, 700) in order to separate the flows therein along the entire adiabatic region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the wall of Lewis from an impermeable material along the entire adiabatic region, as taught by Hou, to ensure separation of the flows on either side.
Lewis further teaches that: the copper hermetic seal occurs at a temperature between 170 and 300 C (e.g. copper soldering temperatures; see Para. [0043]), per claims 2; the non-copper layer of the top casing comprises a polymer encapsulated with copper (see Para. [0004]), per claims 4; the sealed top and bottom casings form an isolated vacuum cavity (Para. [0068]), per claims 9 and 29; the thermal management plane may have a thickness less than 200 microns (Para. [0060]), per claims 10 and 30; the cap is configured to restrict a meniscus from forming and proceeding underneath the cap (no meniscus can proceed underneath the cap as it directly abuts 815), per claim 27.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments about a meniscus proceeding underneath the cap of Lewis, the cap directly abuts element 815 and thus a meniscus cannot proceed underneath it.
The non-tubular wick region of Lewis has many sides and the relevant sides to the claim language are those which form arterial regions.
The argument about the caps not being formed at the extreme outer sides of the arterial region are not persuasive as these areas are capped by the sidewalls of the casing (see annotated figure).
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights