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’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 13-20 and Species C figs 8-9, claims 13-14 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12, 15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
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 14, 16, 17 and 19 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.
Claims 14, 16, 17 and 19 recites the limitation "to each other" or “from each other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to what “each other” is referring to.
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 13-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US Patent No.: 6,360,814 hereinafter “Tanaka”).
With respect to claim 13, Tanaka discloses a boiling cooler (Fig. 1, 1) comprising: a boiler (Fig. 1, 2) for vaporizing a refrigerant by transferring heat from a heat source (Fig. 3, heat source from 4 and Col. 2, lines 4-10); and a condenser (Fig. 1, 3) for condensing the vaporized refrigerant and returning the condensed refrigerant to the boiler, wherein the boiler includes a mount (2a), the mount including: a mounting surface onto which the heat source is mounted (Fig. 3, 4 is mounted to bottom surface of 2a); and a boiling surface portion formed on a surface opposite to the mounting surface and is in contact with the refrigerant (Fig. 4, top surface of 2a where 6 is located and Col. 4, lines 49-65), and the boiling surface portion includes a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 4, protrusions 6) whose widths gradually increase from bases to ends of the protrusions (Fig. 15c, protrusions 23b can have widths gradually increase from base end at 28 to 23a).
With respect to claim 14, Tanaka discloses the boiling cooler according to claim 13 as discussed above. Tanka also discloses wherein the plurality of protrusions are aligned in a matrix shape in the boiling surface portion in first and second directions substantially perpendicular to each other in a plane substantially parallel to the boiling surface portion (Fig. 15c, 23b is in a matrix and perpendicular to each other in a plane parallel to a boiling surface).
With respect to claim 16, Tanaka discloses the boiling cooler according to claim 13 as discussed above. Tanka also discloses wherein the boiling surface portion includes a plurality of linear protrusions that extend in a first direction in the plane substantially parallel to the boiling surface portion and aligned to each other in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction in the plane substantially parallel to the boiling surface portion, and the plurality of protrusions that are aligned to each other on the linear protrusions and parts between the plurality of linear protrusions in the second direction (Fig. 11, linear protrusions 6a).
With respect to claim 17, Tanaka discloses the boiling cooler according to claim 13 as discussed above. Tanka also discloses wherein the plurality of protrusions are aligned at a pitch smaller than the width of each protrusion away from each other in the boiling surface portion (Fig. 15c, protrusions 23b are aligned at a pitch smaller than the width of each protrusion away from each other on boiling surface).
With respect to claim 19, Tanaka discloses the boiling cooler according to claim 13 as discussed above. Tanka also discloses wherein a distance between the ends of the protrusions adjacent to each other is smaller than the width of the end of one of the protrusions, and a distance between the bases of the protrusions adjacent to each other is greater than the width of the end of one of the protrusions (Fig. 15c, distance between protrusions 23b at end located on 28 is larger than distance between protrusions on the end at 23a).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Patent No.: 6,360,814 hereinafter “Tanaka”) in view of Chikagawa (US Publication No.: 2020/0049422 hereinafter “Chikagawa”).
With respect to claim 18, Tanaka discloses the boiling cooler according to claim 13 as discussed above. Tanka is silent to the protrusions are prismoid-shaped protrusions.
Chikagawa teaches protrusions that can have a prism shape (Para 0041). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the protrusion of Tanaka to be prism shaped as taught by Chikagawa to enhance capillary forces and heat transfer (Para 0007-0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights