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.
Requirement for Foreign Applicants to use Patent Practitioner
As set forth in MPEP 605, the applicant in a patent application may be an inventor, a joint inventor, a group of joint inventors, an individual or group of individuals who has rights to the invention, or one or more juristic entities (e.g., organizational assignees). A foreign domicile of any one of the parties identified as the applicant will result in representation by a registered practitioner being required. For example, in an application in which the applicant is multiple joint inventors, representation by a registered practitioner will be required if any one of the joint inventors identified as the applicant is foreign domiciled.
It is noted that applicant currently is NOT properly represented as no power of attorney has been filed as required. Note that identification of representation on the application Data Sheet does not constitute representation power. As the current application was filed before the rule effective date of July 20, 2026 the current submission is being examined, but proper representation must be filed for any response to be considered. See “Required Use by Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent Practitioner” at 91 Fed. Reg. 13510 March 20, 2026 (notice).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings appear to have a mix of inverted black and white drawings. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 Standards for drawings. “(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings;”
The text is a mixture of colors changing mid word Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 Standards for drawings “(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible.” And “(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. “
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “a evaporator zone” in line 18 should properly be “an evaporator zone”. Further, the claim langue of “working fluid (refrigerant) is both inconsistent and improper as paratheses are for reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found “a device with any processor (workstations, data centers, laptops, virtual reality glasses and the like)” on page 9 of the specification are the corresponding structure thus these structures and equivalents will be considered to read on the limitation.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found “a device with any processor (workstations, data centers, laptops, virtual reality glasses and the like)” on page 9 of the specification are the corresponding structure thus these structures and equivalents will be considered to read on the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 due to 112(f) issues above
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1 as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawings found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure of any significant detail. Applicants appear to be describing their own invention, but the language of the claim compares it to this which is undefined, further the specification never fully describes such with this term.
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 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different possibilities for “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy”. Applicants appear to be describing their own invention, but the language of the claim compares it to this which is undefined, further the specification never fully describes such with this term.
For each of these the Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additional non-112(f) related 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 1-3 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.
The claims, 1-3, are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The terms identified below are in claims are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“new” in claim 1 (“new flat plate pulsating heat pipe”), applicant may be trying to identify their invention as new, but in the claim it creates an unclear limitation.
“membrane type” and “membrane-type” in claims 1-3 is an indefinite term, as it is unclear what exactly read on a membrane type. Does it require a membrane or what “type” structure is similar enough to read the claim term.
“effective cooling” in claim 1 is an indefinite term, as it is unclear what exactly is required for or how “effective cooling” is measured or determined.
“improving both the pulsating/oscillatory movement of the working fluid and ensuring its circulation at high speed” in claim 1 is an indefinite term, as it is unclear what exactly is required for or how “improving” is measured or determined.
“circulation at high speed” in claim 1 is an indefinite term, as it is unclear what exactly is required for or how “improving” is measured or determined.
“reduces the size- volume-weight-production cost” is indefinite as it is unclear how such is measured or determined (what is baseline measured against).
“reducing dependence on the number of channels” is indefinite was it is unclear how dependency is measured or compared (what baseline is used).
“offers high cooling performance independent of gravity” is indefinite as it is unclear how the cooling performance is determined to be “high”, what it is compared to or measured.
“novel flat plate pulsating heat pipe” is indefinite as “novel” is an official finding and thus unclear how it is applied or determined in the claim.
The claims recite the following limitations which there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
“the temperature increase” in line 2, there has been no prior claim of “a temperature increase”.
Claims bounce between “membrane type” and “membrane-type”, which is indefinite as it is unclear if two different structures are claimed or just one inconsistently phrased.
“has cross-sectional area of the channels” in line 7 appears to properly be “has a cross-sectional area of the channels” currently has an unclear antecedent issue.
“the suction-pumping process” in line 10 as there has been such action previously claimed.
the pulsating/oscillatory movement” in line 11 as there has been such action previously claimed.
“both the suction-pressure movements” in line 12 as there has been such action previously claimed, appears to properly be “both suction-pressure movements”.
“the suction-compression movements” in line 19 as there has been such action previously claimed.
“a working fluid(refrigerant)” in line 16 as there has already been “a working fluid” claimed, thus making it unclear if it is the same or a new working fluid.
“the surface” in line 17 as there is no previous claimed “surface” so it is unclear if applicant is claiming a new substructure or referencing a prior one.
“the thermal energy” in line 17 as there is no previous claimed “thermal energy” so it is unclear if applicant is claiming a new energy or referencing a prior one structure/function.
“the area where the temperature” in line 21 is indefinite as there is no previously claimed unlimited “area”.
“suction-compression” in line 1 page 2 as there has been such action previously claimed.
“the suction-compression process” in line 3 page 2 as there has been such action previously claimed.
“the cross-sectional area includes channels” in line 9 page 2 is indefinite as there is no previously claimed structure (note previously claimed “the cross-sectional area of the channels”).
“a variable channel according to claim 1” in line 1 of claim 2 as there is no previously single variable channel claimed (claim 1 included “variable channels”)
The claims include the below highlights language that makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). It is recommended that most of these include “configured to” language to clarify.
“that prevents the temperature increase and provides temperature control during the operation of systems with a control unit or any heat-producing component” requires a result based upon use.
“are subjected to continuous shape change due to bubble movements in the form of growth, collapse and coalescence that occur due to the boiling of a working fluid” requires a result based upon use.
“has cross-sectional area of the channels containing the working fluid changes dynamically at different levels, and the moving channel walls with a membrane-type flexible structure serve as the mechanism that performs the suction-pumping process, as in a pump” requires a result based upon use.
“a working fluid (refrigerant) that starts to boil under the influence of the thermal energy generated on the surface to be temperature controlled, undergoes bubble formation-collapse-merging processes and circulates between a evaporator zone and a condenser zone with the suction-compression movements created by the membrane- type flexible moving channel walls, and removes the thermal energy it receives from the area where the temperature controlled component is located with the circulation it performs” claims an action which is based upon use.
“the membrane type flexible movable channel walls, which are subject to continuous shape changes due to changes in bubbles, which cause the cross-sectional area of the channels containing the fluid to change dynamically at different levels, which act as a device that naturally performs suction-compression without expending any electrical energy, which enables effective cooling by improving both the pulsating / oscillatory movement of the working fluid (refrigerant) with the suction-compression process it creates and providing high speed circulation” claims an action which is based upon use.
“with channels through which the fluid circulates in pulsating and oscillating back-and- forth movements, with a filling channel through which the working fluid (refrigerant) is loaded, with a vacuuming channel through which vacuuming is performed” claims an action which is based upon use.
“the cross-sectional area includes channels that dynamically change at different levels during operation” claims an action which is based upon use.
Claim 1 is indefinite as the limitation of “prevents the temperature increase” as it is unclear if it prevents any increase in temperature or if it merely limits it to an unclear degree.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). “such as supercomputers, data centers, unmanned aerial vehicles and wearable technological devices” of line 3-4.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the limitation of “movable channel walls in a membrane-type flexible structure” as it is unclear what the walls are “in”. It is unclear based upon the claim and specification if applicant is claiming the walls are made of a membrane-type flexible structure or if applicant means the walls are within such as claimed.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the language of “the moving channel walls with a membrane-type flexible structure serve as the mechanism that performs the suction-pumping process, as in a pump”. The language off “as in a pump” makes it unclear what is claimed, one skilled in the art would not know if what exactly meets the limitation of “as in a pump” requires structurally or functionally. Applicants claim already requires “suction-pumping process” and this is unclear what is additionally required.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the limitation of “reduces the size- volume-weight-production cost by reducing dependence on the number of channels and offers high cooling performance independent of gravity” as it is unclear what is independent of gravity. One skilled in the art would not know how performance is measured independent of gravity, how such is test or compared.
Claim1 is indefinite for the mixture of the following process/movement “the suction-pumping process”, “the suction-pressure movements”, “the suction-compression movements”, “naturally performs suction-compression”, “the suction-compression process” as it is unclear (partially due to the above antecedent issues) if these are different actions or inconsistent phrasing for the same action.
Claim 2 is indefinite for e the preamble of “The novel flat plate pulsating heat pipe” as the prior claim form which it depends on is a “A new flat plate pulsating heat pipe”. The word “novel” is not the same as “new” thus making it unclear if applicant is claiming the prior or something different.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the limitations of “without being powered by any electrical source” is unclear as applicant defines the heat source as “a control unit or any heat-producing component, such as supercomputers, data centers, unmanned aerial vehicles and wearable technological devices” and the pumping force is created due to the heat source creating bubbles, thus it is unclear how the movement is not powered by any electrical source. Applicants may mean without electrical power directly to the heat pipe, but such is not claimed or clear.
Examiner notes that the claims are so indefinite as to prevent reasonable application of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Romanin et al. (U.S. Patent 11,054,194), Romanin et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0041186), Kaminsky et al. (U.S. patent 11,465,093), Richards et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0257766), Zhu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0144567) teach various flexible and bubble fluid flow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights