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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 09th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed December 23rd, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “a stopper, placed in the looped tube to block a section therein” should read “a stopper, placed in the looped tube to block a section in the looped tube”
Claims 2-10 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 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, lines 2-3 recite, “a looped tube, comprising a first tube and a second tube with different diameters and being separately disposed from each other” which is unclear to the Examiner as the looped tube is formed by the combination of the first tube and the second tube and are therefore not separately disposed from each other. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the loop tube to be formed of two separate tubes (i.e., the first tube and the second tube) as suggested by the figures and the specification. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify this arrangement.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2008/0078530), hereinafter Chang in view of Tseng et al. (US 20190331431), hereinafter Tseng and Zhou et al. (US 20100155019), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. discloses a looped heat pipe, comprising:
a looped tube (Figure 1, 10), comprising a first tube (Figure 1, 11) and a second tube (Figure 1, 13) with different diameters (Figure 1, see also Figures 2 and 5), the second tube connecting the first tube to seal two ends of the first tube,
a capillary structure (Figure 1, Defined by capillary elements 112 and 15) disposed on inner wall of the first tube and inner wall of the second tube (Figure 1),
a stopper (Figure 1, Defined by capillary element 112 of the capillary structure) placed in the looped tube to block a section therein (Figure 1), and
a working fluid (Paragraph 5) contained in the looped tube (Figure 1 and Paragraph 5),
where the working fluid is vaporized to be a vapor to flow in the looped tube after being heated (Figure 1, see also Paragraphs 17 and 21), the vapor flows in a specific direction with blocking of the stopper (Figure 1, see also Paragraphs 17 and 21), and then the vapor is cooled back to the working fluid to flow along the capillary structure (Figure 1, see also Paragraphs 17 and 21);
However, Chang does not disclose the first tube and the second tube being separately disposed from each other.
Tseng teaches a looped tube formed from two separate tubes (Fig. 2, loop heat pipe 10, vapor delivery pipe31, liquid delivery pipe 41; As best understood see 112(b) rejections above).
Chang fails to teach the first tube and the second tube being separately disposed from each other, however Tseng teaches that it is a known method in the art of looped tube heat pipes to include a looped tube formed from two separate tubes. This is strong evidence that modifying Chang as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. fluid slugs are moved under a pressure difference in the vapor delivery pipe and the liquid delivery pipe even in the absence of a capillary force such that the liquid working fluid can return to the evaporation chamber easily and quickly (Tseng, Pg. 2, paragraph 23)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by Tseng and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of fluid slugs are moved under a pressure difference in the vapor delivery pipe and the liquid delivery pipe even in the absence of a capillary force such that the liquid working fluid can return to the evaporation chamber easily and quickly (Tseng, Pg. 2, paragraph 23).
Further, Chang as modified does not disclose wherein the stopper is a separate component from the capillary structure and is configured to enforce a single-direction circulation path between the first tube and the second tube; one side of the stopper abuts against the inner wall of the first tube, and another side of the stopper abuts against the capillary structure.
Zhou teaches wherein the stopper is a separate component from the capillary structure and is configured to enforce a single-direction circulation path between the first tube and the second tube; one side of the stopper abuts against the inner wall of the first tube, and another side of the stopper abuts against the capillary structure (Fig. 3, evaporator 10, capillary main body 180, evaporation portion 182, protrusion 184, partition 12; Pg. 2, paragraph 21, The partition 12 prevents the main body 180 of the wick structure 18 from directly contacting with the working medium in the compensation chamber 16, decreasing a contact area of the wick structure 18 with the working medium in the compensation chamber 16, thereby decreasing a reverse evaporation area of the wick structure 18. A reverse vapor pressure of the compensation chamber 16 is reduced, keeping the positive vapor pressure in a normal range. On the other hand, the protrusion 184 of the wick structure 18 extends into the working medium in the compensation chamber 16. Heat that is transferred to the protrusion 184 is condensed quickly, and air bubbles on the protrusion 184 are decreased to keep a permeation rate of the working medium in the compensation chamber 16 for preventing the working medium in the evaporation chamber 14 from being evaporated out; Further, the partition 12 of Shou has the same structure as the claimed stopper and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Chang as modified fails to teach wherein the stopper is a separate component from the capillary structure and is configured to enforce a single-direction circulation path between the first tube and the second tube; one side of the stopper abuts against the inner wall of the first tube, and another side of the stopper abuts against the capillary structure, however Zhou teaches that it is a known method in the art of looped heat pipes to include wherein the stopper is a separate component from the capillary structure and is configured to enforce a single-direction circulation path between the first tube and the second tube; one side of the stopper abuts against the inner wall of the first tube, and another side of the stopper abuts against the capillary structure. This is strong evidence that modifying Chang as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. decreasing a contact area of the wick structure with the working medium in the compensation chamber thereby decreasing a reverse evaporation area of the wick structure to improve overall system efficiencies (Zhou, Pg. 2, paragraph 21)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang as modified by Zhou and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of decreasing a contact area of the wick structure with the working medium in the compensation chamber thereby decreasing a reverse evaporation area of the wick structure to improve overall system efficiencies (Zhou, Pg. 2, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 2, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the capillary structure is a plate made of braided metal wire (Chang, Paragraph 22: Woven metal wire).
Regarding claim 3, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the capillary structure is distributed around part of inner wall of the looped tube (Chang, Figures 4-5: See capillary element 15 of the capillary structure).
Regarding claim 4, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the capillary structure is distributed around entire inner wall of the looped tube (Chang, Figure 2: See capillary element 112 of the capillary structure).
Regarding claim 5, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the stopper is a cylinder (Chang, Figures 1 and 5) made by sintering powdered metal (Chang, Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 6, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein that the stopper is positioned in the first tube (Chang, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first tube (Chang, i.e. 11) is a straight pipe and comprises a first pipe diameter (Chang, Figure 1, see also Figures 2 and 5), and the second tube (Chang, i.e. 13) comprises a second pipe diameter (Chang, Figure 1, see also Figures 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first tube and the second tube are joined in a tight fit manner (Chang, Paragraph 18: The first and second pipes are connected in a fluid tight manner).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as modified by Tseng and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0031329), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 9, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Chang as modified does not explicitly teach or disclose that solder is arranged at a junction of the first tube and the second tube.
Wang teaches a heat pipe, comprising at least: a first pipe (44) and a second pipe (45), where solder is arranged at a junction of the first tube and the second tube (Paragraph 25). As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the first tube and the second tube as disclosed by Chang as modified to be soldered together as taught by Wang et al. to improve looped heat pipe service life by operatively sealing sections of piping to each other to define a fluid-tight joint.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as modified by Tseng and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2011/0155350), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Chang as modified discloses the looped heat pipe according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Chang as modified does not explicitly teach or disclose a degassing pipe attached to the looped tube.
Huang et al. teaches a heat pipe, comprising at least: a heat pipe body (100), where a degassing pipe (200) is attached to the heat pipe body (Figure 3 and Paragraph 17). As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the looped tube as disclosed by Chang as modified with a degassing pipe as taught by Huang et al. to facilitate manufacture of a looped heat pipe by providing a dedicated port for evacuating air then filling the looped heat pipe with working fluid (Huang, Paragraphs 17-18).
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 T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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 MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 17th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights