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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 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 recites “compressing the sintered compact by rolling” in Line 8. It is unclear whether the sintered compact is actually rolled, as the word “by” does not sufficiently impart an actionable and repeatable method step. The nexus between the act of “compressing” and the act of “rolling” is not cleared by use of the term “by” which does not, in this claim, impart an action clear and repeatable to persons of ordinary skill. In other words, there is no action following the word “rolling” and therefore it is unclear what, if any, object is actually ‘rolled.’ Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the wick” in Line 9. While the preamble recites “A method for manufacturing a wick” in Line 1, the recitation of “the wick” in Line 9 lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. No structure of manufacturing a wick has been imparted in the preamble. It is unclear whether “the wick” references some separate wick, or has some other meaning entirely. It is further unclear the nexus between the recitation of “the wick” in Line 9 and the formation of a wick within the instant claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the wick” in Line 2. While the preamble in Claim 1 on which Claim 9 depends recites “A method for manufacturing a wick” in Line 1, the recitation of “the wick” in Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. No structure of manufacturing a wick has been imparted in the preamble. It is unclear whether “the wick” references some separate wick, or has some other meaning entirely. It is further unclear the nexus between the recitation of “the wick” in Claim 9 and the formation of a wick within Claim 1 on which Claim 9 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the material powder” in Line 2 which lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. Previous mention in Claim 1 on which Claim 10 depends is to “a raw material containing metal powder” in Line 2. It is unclear what is meant by “the material powder” and it is unclear the source of any “material powder.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a sintering temperature.” Claim 1 on which Claim 11 depends recites “heating the raw material on the base to obtain a sintered compact” in Lines 6-7.There is no recitation of a sintering step and therefore recitation of “a sintering temperature” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. For applicant’s benefit, it is noted Claim 10 also recites “the heating of the raw material.”
Claims 2-8 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. JP 2011214049 A in view of Nishimura et al. JP 2000054159 A and NPL Bonk et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. ‘049 teaches a method for manufacturing a wick comprising supplying a raw material containing metal powder onto a carrier sheet (meeting the limitation for a base), wherein the raw material supplied onto the base has a thickness of 0.05 to 5 mm, overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.5 to 2.0 mm (Abstract),[0046]. Yang et al. ‘049 teaches heating the raw material on the base to obtain a sintered contact.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Yang et al. ‘049 does not expressly teach compressing the sintered compact by rolling.
However, Nishimura et al. ‘159 teaches a method for manufacturing a wick comprising subjecting a sintered body to continuous compression in the thickness direction in order to obtain a predetermined thickness. Nishimura et al. ‘159 teaches forming a sintered compact plate with an exemplary thickness of 0.5 mm at [0034] falling within the instantly claimed range of 0.05 mm to 1.0 mm.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Nishimura et al. ‘159 is not limited in its teaching of supplying compression continuously to the thickness direction of a sintered body for a wick, but does not expressly teach rolling.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be motivated by a desire to form a uniform thickness in the sintered compact for a wick, to seek the art for known methods of applying compression continuously.
NPL Bonk et al. teaches cold rolling a sintered metal compact in order to enhance both thermophysical and thermochemical properties of the formed sheet. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. NPL Bonk et al. teaches rolling a sintered compact from 5.5 mm down to 0.1 mm whilst maintaining mechanical strength of the formed foil and reducing the formation of defects (Abstract, Pages 92-93).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to cold roll the sintered compact of Yang et al. ‘049 down to as low as 0.1 mm in order to supply compression continuously and enhance thermochemical and thermophysical properties of the formed compact plate based on the teachings of Nishimura et al. ‘159 at [0034] and NPL Box et al. at (Abstract, Pages 92-93), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches the raw material contains a binder [0015], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches the raw material on the base is heated together with the carrier sheet (meeting the limitation for a base [0015](Fig. 1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches a copper or tungsten substrate at [0002]. Nishimura et al. ‘159 further teaches rolling the sintered compact onto a copper sheet base [0034], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for the base being made of a metal.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches leveling the raw material with a blade prior to sintering [0015](Fig.1), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for smoothening the raw material powder on the base.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches cutting the sintered compact with a cutter (16)(Fig. 1)[0045-0046], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches forming an overall porosity of 70 to 90%, overlapping the average void ratio rang of 5% to 90%, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, Yang et al. ‘049 further teaches cutting a sintering temperature of less than or equal to 658 °C, overlapping the instantly claimed range of 400 °C to 1050 °C, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. JP 2011214049 A in view of Nishimura et al. JP 2000054159 A and NPL Bonk et al. as applied to Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11 above, further in view of Oki et al. JP 2013241680 A.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 does not expressly teach forming steam passages or protrusions on a surface of the sintered compact.
However, Oki eta l. ‘680 teaches forming concavo-convex portions on either side of the sintered sheet comprising a sintered compact of raw material comprising metal powder on a base [0007].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply a transfer roller to the sintered compact of Yang et al. ‘049 in order to create concavo-convex portions (meeting the limitation of the instant claims for steam passages and protrusions respectively), in order to quickly discharge water within a fuel cell comprising the formed wick, based on the teachings of Oki et al. ‘680, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. JP 2011214049 A in view of Nishimura et al. JP 2000054159 A and NPL Bonk et al. as applied to Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11 above, further in view of NPL Vasiliev et al.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Yang et al. ‘049 teaches the limitations set forth above. Yang et al. ‘049 does not expressly state the bulk density or true density of its material powder.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejection above, NPL Vasiliev et al. teaches that the powder density (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for bulk density) of metal material used within a heat pipe should be no more than 60% of its true density, overlapping and encompassing the instantly claimed range of 10 to 50%.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the sintered compact of Yang et al. ‘049 such that the bulk density of its powders is no more than 60% of its true density in order to reduce thermal and mechanical stress and in order to form a material suitable for use in a heat pipe based on the teachings of NPL Vasiliev et al. at (Introduction), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4569656 A teaches a wick for a fuel burner having a bulk density approximately 10% its true density.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights