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.
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.
Claim(s) 1–4,6-9 is/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.
With respect to claim 1, type in “self-regenerating bridge-type heat pipe” renders self-regenerating bridge heat pipe indefinite. Addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g. Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(E). For purposes of this office communication, “self-regenerating bridge heat pipe” replaces “self-regenerating bridge-type heat pipe.”
With respect to claims 2-4 and 6-9, they are rejected because they depend on base claim 1.
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) 1-4,6 and 9 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).
As to claim 1, MA (2020) discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe, in which a working fluid is filled within flow passages (Paragraphs 20,21) which are alternately folded back (See Annotated Figure Above), a bridge of the working fluid capable of moving along the flow passages is formed within the flow passages according to an internal pressure of the flow passages (Paragraphs 30,31), and wherein a filling ratio of the working fluid is 30 vol.% or less. (Paragraph 36)
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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. 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.
As to claim 2, MA (2020), as modified by MA (2011) further discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe.
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).
As to claim 3, MA (2020) as modified by MA (2011) 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 9, MA as modified by MA (2011) discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe,
However, MA (2020) does not disclose wherein the working fluid is water, and the filing ratio of the working fluid is less than 10%.
While MA (2020), as stated above, does not provide that the working fluid is water, and the filling ratio of the working fluid is less than 10%, the structure as disclosed in MA (2020) is capable of having water as a working fluid with the filling ratio less than 10%. 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).
Self-regenerating bridge heat pipe is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 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 7, MA as modified by MA (2011) discloses a self-regenerating bridge heat pipe (Paragraphs 20,21,30,31,36, Figure 1). However, MA 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 and arrive at the invention as specified in claim 7.
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.
Conclusion
Surface modifications to enhance dropwise condensation by GOSWAMI et al, discloses surface modifications to create hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces.
JI et al, Method for designing startup critical tube diameter of pulsating heat pipe in vertical state discloses similar structure.
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
2/18/2026
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763