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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 August, 2024, 27 September,2024, and 10 December, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 13 May, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1,3,4,6,8,10-13 are pending.
Claims 2,5,7,9 have been cancelled.
Claims 10-13 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), in light of the amendments to the claims to removal of the word “type” and therefore, the rejections of claims with regards to 112 (f) claim rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,6,8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA et al (US 2020/0400380 A1 – published 24 December, 2020), in view of MA et al (WO-2011130313-A1 – published 20 October, 2011), and SHUWEI et al (JP 3170057U – published 1 September, 2011; see English Machine translated furnished with this Office Action)
As to claim 1, MA (2020) discloses, A self-regenerating bridge heat pipe in which a working fluid is filled within flow passages which are alternately folded back,
However, MA (2020), does not disclose that the heat pipe is made of aluminum,
MA (2011), however, teaches that the heat pipe is made of aluminum (Paragraph 3),
As such, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify MA (2020), in view of MA (2011) and arrive at the claimed invention.
MA (2020), does not disclose that the inner surfaces of the flow passages are subjected to a water-repellent treatment,
SHUWEI, however, teaches that the inner surfaces of the flow passages are subjected to a water repellent treatment to improve the circulation efficiency of the working fluid (Paragraphs 11,14,22,34) due to water repellent properties such as hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity,
While MA, as stated above, does not disclose that the inner surfaces of the flow passages are subjected to a water repellent treatment, one having ordinary skill within the art would have found that treating the inner surfaces of the flow passages with a water repellent treatment to improve the efficiency of the working fluid inside the structure entirely obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MA with the teachings of SHUWEI to incorporate water repellent treatment to improve the circulation efficiency of the working fluid.
MA (2020), does not disclose that a filling ratio of the working fluid ranges from 5 vol.% to 10 vol.%,
However, MA (2020) discloses wherein the filling ratio of the working fluid is between 20 to 80 vol% (paragraph 36) and not between 5 to 10 vol.%.
While MA (2020), as stated above, does not provide that the filling ratio of the working fluid is 5 to 10 vol.% The structure as disclosed in MA is capable of having a filling ratio of the working fluid in the range of 5 to 10 vol.% and one having ordinary skill within the art would have found that capability entirely obvious, The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
MA (2020), does not disclose that an internal pressure of the flow passages is at reduced pressure,
While MA (2020), does not disclose that an internal pressure of the flow passages is at reduced pressure, it is noted the concept that heat pipe works as a result of pressure difference of the flow passages under vacuum is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Not having a range specified in the claim renders the limitation extremely broad and one having ordinary skill in the art finds reduced internal pressure of the passages under BRI, entirely obvious.
MA (2020), does not disclose that a bridge of the working fluid, capable of moving along the flow passages, is formed within the flow passages,
While MA (2020), does not disclose a bridge of the working fluid is formed in the flow passages that is capable of moving along the flow passages, this structure is capable of being formed in the flow passages of MA, as the structure is similar to MA without any significant structural changes, if MA’s structure is coated with water repellent treatment it is capable of forming the bridge.
MA (2020), does not disclose that the flow passages extend back and forth multiple times between one folded-back end and other folded-back end that are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the flow passages, and a distance between the one folded-back end and the other folded-back end is 400 mm or less.
While MA (2020), as stated above, does not provide a range, MA does provide a value that falls within the claimed range (Page 7, Table 1, Total length (mm) 106, See MPEP 2131.03). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
As to claim 3, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) teaches the limitations of claim 1, MA further discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe,
However, MA (2020) does not disclose a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe, wherein a cross-sectional area of the flow passages is 0.25 mm2 or more and 9.0 mm2 or less.
While MA (2020), as stated above, does not provide a range, MA does provide a value that falls within the claimed range (Page 7, Table 1, Cross Section (mm2) 2X2, See MPEP 2131.03). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
As to claim 4, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) further discloses the self-regenerating bridge heat pipe, wherein, in a state where the self-regenerating bridge heat pipe is made to come into contact with a high temperature section and a low temperature section, a bridge of the working fluid is formed within the flow passages (Paragraphs 21,30 and 31).
[AltContent: textbox (Working fluid is filled within flow passages)][AltContent: textbox (Flow passages are alternately folded back)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
480
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) further discloses the self-regenerating bridge heat pipe,
However, MA (2020) does not disclose a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe, wherein, in a distance from one folded-back end to the other folded-back end of the flow passages is 50 mm or more.
While MA (2020), as stated above, does not provide a range, MA does provide a value that falls within the claimed range (Page 7, Table 1, Total length (mm) 106, See MPEP 2131.03). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
As to claim 8, MA discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe (Paragraphs 20,21,30,31,36, Figure 1). However, MA does not disclose about any water repellent treatment which is either an aluminum anodizing treatment or a boehmite treatment.
SHUWEI, however, teaches that the inner surfaces of the flow passages are subjected to a water repellent treatment, particularly providing an oxide film to an inner surface of the flow passages to improve the circulation efficiency of the working fluid (Paragraphs 11-34),
While MA, as stated above, does not disclose that the inner surfaces of the flow passages are subjected to a water repellent treatment such as aluminum anodizing treatment or a boehmite treatment, one having ordinary skill within the art would have found that treating the inner surfaces of the flow passages with these water repellent treatments improve the efficiency of the working fluid inside the structure entirely obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MA with the teachings of SHUWEI to incorporate aluminum anodizing treatment or boehmite treatment and form an oxide layer to improve the circulation efficiency of the working fluid and arrive at the invention as specified in claim 8.
As to claim 10, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI teaches the limitations of claim 1,
However, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage is polygonal, including a rectangular shape,
While, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage is polygonal, including a rectangular shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found changes in shape entirely obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI to incorporate a cross-section of the flow passage to be polygonal, including a rectangular shape, as the change in form or shape is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
As to claim 11, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI teaches the limitations of claim 1,
However, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage has a rounded shape,
While, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage has a rounded shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found changes in shape entirely obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI to incorporate a cross-section of the flow passage to be a rounded shape, as the change in form or shape is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
As to claim 12, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI teaches the limitations of claim 3,
However, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage is polygonal, including a rectangular shape,
While, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage is polygonal, including a rectangular shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found changes in shape entirely obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI to incorporate a cross-section of the flow passage to be polygonal, including a rectangular shape, as the change in form or shape is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
As to claim 13, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI teaches the limitations of claim 3,
However, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage has a rounded shape,
While, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI, does not teach that the cross-section of the flow passage has a rounded shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found changes in shape entirely obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) and SHUWEI to incorporate a cross-section of the flow passage to be a rounded shape, as the change in form or shape is an obvious engineering design, which the Applicant, without any new or unexpected results directed to an outcome of the claimed shape, has not placed any criticality thereon.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, filed 13 May,2026 with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1,3,4,6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues on page 7 that limitations (A, B, C, and E) are not disclosed in MA (2020) or MA (2011) and accordingly the current rejection is no longer reasonable. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of MA (2020), and MA (2011), in combination with teachings of SHUWEI to teach the requirements. See discussion within the associated rejections presented herein.
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 BIGYAN BHATTACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/BIGYAN BHATTACHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights