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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse Invention I and Species B (Figures 8-10) in the reply filed on 3/12/2026.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 6/29/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-12 are pending;
Claims 4, 5, and 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 6/29/2026 and is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenfeld (US2005/0022984A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Rosenfeld teaches a heat transfer device (2 is a heat pipe, which is a heat transfer device), comprising:
a thermal conductive shell (12, 14), comprising a closed chamber (10) (Figures 3-4, 8; Paragraphs 47-49);
a capillary structure (25, 62, or 90), arranged in the closed chamber, the capillary structure comprising a plurality of sintered balls (27, 71, 73, or 76), each of the sintered balls being made of a metal powder by firstly sintering, each of the sintered balls comprising a plurality of first pores (first spaces between 27) defined between the metal powder therein, the thermal conductive shell comprising an internal surface comprising at least one portion covered with the sintered balls (Figures 3-4 illustrates the capillary structure on the internal wall of the chamber 10) by secondary sintering, a plurality of second pores (second spaces between 27) defined between the sintered balls, wherein each of the first pores is smaller than each of the second pores (Figures 1-6, 19-20, 36-37, 40-43; Paragraphs 47-52, 58, 63-64; Rosenfeld teaches the metal balls 27 can be bonded via brazing or sintering. Figure 5 illustrates various pores between the balls 27, wherein at least a first plurality of pores is smaller than a second plurality of pores. The claim sets forth no specific size of the pores or uniformity of pores, and thus the various illustrated sizes of pores of Figure 5 satisfies the recited limitations. Additionally, Figures 36-37 and 40-43 illustrate graded wicks with different metal balls 71, 73, 76 that each have different diameters, which results in different pore sizes between the balls due to the different diameters. Paragraphs 60-63. Additionally, the presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of manufacturing) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113); and
a working fluid, accommodated in the closed chamber (Figure 3; Paragraph 48).
Re Claim 2. Rosenfeld teaches each of the sintered balls is made of a copper powder or an aluminum powder by sintering (Paragraphs 48-49, 58, 63-64).
Re Claim 3. Rosenfeld teaches the thermal conductive shell is made of copper or aluminum (Paragraph 48).
Re Claim 6. Rosenfeld teaches the thermal conductive sell is of a hollow plate shape (Figures 1-4, Paragraphs 47-48).
Re Claim 7. Rosenfeld teaches the capillary structure is disposed in the closed chamber corresponding to one side of the thermal conductive shell (Figures 1-5, 8; Paragraphs 47-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 of the reply that Rosenfeld fails to teach “each of the sintered balls being made of a metal powder by firstly sintering, each of the sintered balls comprising a plurality of first pores defined between the metal powder therein, the thermal conductive shell comprising an internal surface comprising at least one portion covered with the sintered balls by secondary sintering”. The applicant is essentially arguing that the capillary structure is formed by a different manufacturing method. The presence of process limitations (i.e. methods of manufacturing) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113. Rosenfeld teaches the metal balls 27 can be bonded via brazing or sintering. Figure 5 illustrates various pores between the balls 27, wherein at least a first plurality of pores is smaller than a second plurality of pores. The claim sets forth no specific size of the pores or uniformity of pores, and thus the various illustrated sizes of pores of Figure 5 satisfies the recited limitations. Additionally, Figures 36-37 and 40-43 illustrate graded wicks with different metal balls 71, 73, 76 that each have different diameters, which results in different pore sizes between the balls due to the different diameters. Thus, the resultant product of Rosenfeld reads on the claimed invention. Accordingly, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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 can be reached at 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights