DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 06/29/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
The finality of the Office Action mailed 02/05/2026 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 and 13-28 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “wherein the plurality of the plurality of deformed…” should read –wherein the plurality of deformed…--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear if the “the deformed mesh” of lines 5-6 is the same as the “a mesh” of line 5.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim has been interpreted to mean, in line 5:
--a deformed mesh disposed…--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 15, 17-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 2006/0162905).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-line planar heat pipe, which is a type of vapor chamber/thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4);
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of 1) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of 1) to form a housing case (1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4) (it is noted, the Merriam-Webster definition of layer is: one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another. Per the Merriam-Webster definition, the Examiner’s interpretation of the first and second casing layers being the top and bottom layers of the thermal ground plane is considered the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the aforementioned top and bottom layers, and the peripheries of the thermal ground plane 1 are hermetically sealed, as it is well known in the art of heat pipes);
a deformed mesh (11) (mesh 11 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) disposed between the first casing layer (top of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom of 1) (figs. 6-8),
the deformed mesh (11) comprising:
a plurality of undeformed portions (111) (figs. 6-8); and
a plurality of deformed portions (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) that are compressed (compressed, since the deformed portions 110 are compressed/flattened during manufacturing, seen figures 6-7) out of plane relative to the undeformed portions (111) (see fig. 1, where the plurality of portions 110 and 111 form a plane, wherein in figures 6-7 the portions 111 remain in the plane while portions 110 have been deformed to form a cylinder at fig. 2 and then flattened/compressed at figures 6-7) [par. 0024];
wherein outer edges of the deformed mesh (11) extend toward the outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of plate 1) and outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of plate 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, below); and
a working fluid disposed in the housing case (1) [par. 0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
323
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hsu discloses:
the plurality of undeformed portions (111) comprising a plurality of pillars (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu discloses:
the plurality of undeformed portions (111) forming a plurality of ridges (the elongated pillars are read as ridges) (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) comprising a porous mesh (the mesh 11, being a metallic web, par. 0022, is read as a porous mesh).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu discloses:
the plurality of deformed portions (110) being formed from plastic deformation (figs. 6-8) (since plastic deformation is defined as: the permanent distortion that occurs when a material is subjected to tensile, compressive, bending, or torsion stresses that exceed its yield strength and cause it to elongate, compress, buckle, bend, or twist).
Regarding claim 6, The recitation "the plurality of deformed portions are formed from inelastic deformation" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Hsu, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu discloses:
a permeable wick (10) (permeable, since wick 10 comprises a metallic web, par. 0018) disposed between the first casing (top of 1) and the second casing (bottom of 1) (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) including a plurality of channels (the vapor channels formed in between portions 111, seen in fig. 7) [par. 0021].
Regarding claim 15, Hsu discloses:
the plurality of deformed portions (110) being arranged in a pattern (of arteries with vapor channels) (seen in fig. 8) [par. 0021].
Regarding claim 17, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) comprises a plurality of mesh layers (layer of portion 110 and layer of portion 111, for instance) (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 18, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) including at least two different mesh layers (110 and 111) (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 21, Hsu discloses:
the (deformed) mesh (11) comprising a mesh (110) that is flattened prior to deformation [par. 0020, as it applies to the embodiment of figs. 6-8].
Regarding claim 22, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-line planar heat pipe, which is a type of vapor chamber/thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4);
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of 1) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of 1) to form a housing case (1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4) (it is noted, the Merriam-Webster definition of layer is: one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another; per the Merriam-Webster definition, the Examiner’s interpretation of the first and second casing layers being the top and bottom layers of the thermal ground plane is considered the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the aforementioned top and bottom layers, and the peripheries of the thermal ground plane 1 are hermetically sealed, as it is well known in the art of heat pipes);
a deformed mesh (the combination of 10 plus 11) (mesh 10 plus 11 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (figs. 6-8), the deformed mesh (10 plus 11) comprising:
a sheet (10) (a sheet, since 10 is attached to the inner surface of the thermal ground plane 1, par. 0018) with ordered or nonordered array of holes in the sheet (10) (figs. 6-8) (since the sheet 10 is a metallic web, par. 0018, and metallic webs of heat pipes include holes or perforations in order to be able to perform capillary action and fluid transport);
a plurality of undeformed portions (111), wherein the plurality of undeformed portions (111) form a plurality of ridges (seen in fig. 7); and
a plurality of deformed portions (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) that are compressed relative to the undeformed portions (111) (compressed, since the deformed portions 110 are compressed/flattened during manufacturing, seen figures 6-7, while undeformed portions 111 remain undeformed during manufacturing); and
a working fluid filled between the first casing layer (top of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom of 1) [par. 0021].
The recitation "a sheet with ordered or nonordered array of holes etched in the sheet" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Hsu is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu.
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-line planar heat pipe, which is a type of vapor chamber/thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4);
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of 1) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of 1) to form a housing case (1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4) (it is noted, the Merriam-Webster definition of layer is: one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another; per the Merriam-Webster definition, the Examiner’s interpretation of the first and second casing layers being the top and bottom layers of the thermal ground plane is considered the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the aforementioned top and bottom layers, and the peripheries of the thermal ground plane 1 are hermetically sealed, as it is well known in the art of heat pipes);
a deformed mesh (the combination of 10 plus 11) (mesh 10 plus 11 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) disposed between the first casing layer (top plate of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) (figs. 6-8),
the deformed mesh (10 plus 11) comprising:
a plurality of undeformed portions (111) (figs. 6-8); and
a plurality of deformed portions (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) that are compressed (compressed, since the deformed portions 110 are compressed/flattened during manufacturing, seen figures 6-7) out of plane relative to the undeformed portions (111) (see fig. 1, where the plurality of portions 110 and 111 form a plane, wherein in figures 6-7 the portions 111 remain in the plane while portions 110 have been deformed to form a cylinder at fig. 2 and then flattened/compressed at figures 6-7) [par. 0024];
wherein outer edges of the deformed mesh (11) extend toward the outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of plate 1) and outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of plate 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4); and
a working fluid disposed in the housing case (1) [par. 0021].
Regarding claim 20, Hsu discloses:
the (deformed) mesh (11) comprising a sheet (10) (a sheet, since 10 is attached to the inner surface of the thermal ground plane 1, par. 0018) with ordered or nonordered array of holes in the sheet (10) (figs. 6-8) (since the sheet 10 is a metallic web, par. 0018, and metallic webs of heat pipes include holes or perforations to optimize capillary action and fluid transport);
The recitation "a sheet with ordered or nonordered array of holes etched in the sheet" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Hsu is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claims 10, 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Chang et al. (US 7,845,394, herein “Chang”) and Carter et al. (US 9,546,826, herein “Carter”).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu does not disclose:
the plurality of undeformed portions (110) having a height less than about 0.2 mm.
However, although the specific height of the plurality of undeformed portions is not disclosed in Hsu, the thickness of thermal ground planes (TGP) is designed to optimize heat transfer and to make the TGP suitable to be used within an electronic component. Chang, for instance, also directed to a thermal ground plane, teaches that heights of casings of TGP’s like heat pipes should not be larger than 2.0 mm in order to accommodate light weight requirements of electronic products [col. 2, lines 45-49]. Following this rationale, the thickness of any wick structure provided in the heat pipe's housing case will be smaller than the thickness of the pipe (it is noted that Chang's wick 13 thickness is smaller than 0.1mm, col. 3, lines 3-6). Further, the ultimate performance of a TGP wick will depend on several design parameters, including the material choice, overall structural geometry, thickness, pore size and spacing, and surface treatments or coatings. Proper optimization of these parameters, in turn, will depend on the physical and chemical properties of the working fluid, including its viscosity, density, conductivity, temperature, and polarity, as taught by Carter [col. 8, lines 26-43]. This is, the thickness of the wick structure is considered to be an obvious design expedient, wherein a person of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design the thickness of the wick according to the user's heat transfer requirements. Therefore, absent criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the thickness of the wick structure is considered a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the wick structure through routine experimentation to arrive at a value which create the desired heat transfer capacity while having the TGP suitable to be used within an electronic component since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding claim 23, Hsu discloses:
a thermal ground plane (1) (figs. 6-8) (it is noted, element -1- is a plate-line planar heat pipe, which is a type of vapor chamber/thermal ground plane, known in the art) [abs., lines 1-2] comprising:
a first casing layer (top plate of 1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4);
a second casing layer (bottom plate of 1) where outer peripheries of the second casing layer (bottom of 1) are hermetically sealed with outer peripheries of the first casing layer (top of 1) to form a housing case (1) (see annotated fig. 7-HSU, page 4) (it is noted, the Merriam-Webster definition of layer is: one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another; per the Merriam-Webster definition, the Examiner’s interpretation of the first and second casing layers being the top and bottom layers of the thermal ground plane is considered the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the aforementioned top and bottom layers, and the peripheries of the thermal ground plane 1 are hermetically sealed, as it is well known in the art of heat pipes);
a deformed mesh (11) (mesh 11 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) disposed between the first casing layer (top of 1) and the second casing layer (bottom of 1) (figs. 6-8),
the deformed mesh (11) comprising:
a plurality of undeformed portions (111) (figs. 6-8); and
a plurality of deformed portions (110) (mesh 110 is deformed/flattened during manufacturing, from figure 6 to 7) that are compressed relative to the undeformed portions (111) (compressed, since the deformed portions 110 are compressed/flattened during manufacturing, seen figures 6-7, while undeformed portions 111 remain undeformed during manufacturing); and
a permeable wick (10) (permeable, since wick 10 comprises a metallic web, par. 0018) disposed in the housing case (1) (figs. 6-8), and
a working fluid disposed in the housing case (1) [par. 0006].
Hsu does not disclose:
The height of the undeformed portions being greater than the sum of the thickness of the deformed portions and the permeable wick.
However, although the specific height of the undeformed portions is not disclosed in Hsu, the thickness of thermal ground planes (TGP) is designed to optimize heat transfer and to make the TGP suitable to be used within an electronic component. Chang, for instance, also directed to a thermal ground plane, teaches that heights of casings of TGP’s like heat pipes should not be larger than 2.0 mm in order to accommodate light weight requirements of electronic products [col. 2, lines 45-49]. Further, the ultimate performance of a TGP wick will depend on several design parameters, including the material choice, overall structural geometry, thickness/height, pore size and spacing, and surface treatments or coatings. Proper optimization of these parameters, in turn, will depend on the physical and chemical properties of the working fluid, including its viscosity, density, conductivity, temperature, and polarity, as taught by Carter [col. 8, lines 26-43]. Furthermore, Hsu alludes to the possibility of the deformed mesh (11) having different geometrical dimensions for the deformed portions (110) and the undeformed portions (111), like the cross-section area of the deformed portions (110) being larger than the cross-section area of the undeformed portion (111) [par. 0019]. This is, the thickness (height) of the wick structure is considered to be an obvious design expedient, wherein a person of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design the thickness of the wick according to the user's heat transfer requirements. Therefore, absent criticality or unexpected results of the height claimed, the thickness/height of the wick structure is considered a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the wick structure through routine experimentation to arrive at a value which create the desired heat transfer capacity while having the TGP suitable to be used within an electronic component since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding claim 24, Hsu discloses:
The deformed mesh (11) comprising a porous mesh (the mesh 11, being a metallic web, par. 0022, is read as a porous mesh).
Regarding claim 25, Hsu discloses:
the plurality of deformed portions (110) being formed from plastic deformation (figs. 6-8) (since plastic deformation is defined as: the permanent distortion that occurs when a material is subjected to tensile, compressive, bending, or torsion stresses that exceed its yield strength and cause it to elongate, compress, buckle, bend, or twist).
Regarding claim 26, The recitation "the plurality of deformed portions are formed from inelastic deformation" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Hsu, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) including a plurality of channels (the vapor channels formed in between portions 111, seen in fig. 7) [par. 0021].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Tran (FR-2989323A1, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu does not disclose:
the deformed mesh (11) comprising a woven mesh.
Tran, also directed to a thermal ground plane (34), teaches different types of wick structures like woven wick mesh (2) (fig. 1) as obvious variation of grooves (12) (fig. 2) or web (14) plus grooves (12) (fig. 3), or sintered powder (20) (fig. 4) or internal fabric (14) (fig. 5). Further, it is known that a woven mesh provides good bending tolerance and optimize capillary attraction provided by the multiple voids defined by the woven mesh, and it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, it would have been obvious to try the Hsu deformed mesh wicking structure comprising a woven mesh to achieve a desired heat transfer coefficient according to the user’s needs.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, Chang and carter, as it applies to claims 10, 23-26 and 28, above, and further in view of Tran.
Regarding claim 27, Hsu discloses:
the deformed mesh (11) comprising a woven mesh.
Tran, also directed to a thermal ground plane (34), teaches different types of wick structures like woven wick mesh (2) (fig. 1) as obvious variation of grooves (12) (fig. 2) or web (14) plus grooves (12) (fig. 3), or sintered powder (20) (fig. 4) or internal fabric (14) (fig. 5). Further, it is known that a woven mesh provides good bending tolerance and optimize capillary attraction provided by the multiple voids defined by the woven mesh, and it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, it would have been obvious to try the Hsu deformed mesh wicking structure comprising a woven mesh to achieve a desired heat transfer coefficient according to the user’s needs.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Carter.
Regarding claims 13-14, Hsu does not disclose:
the plurality of deformed portions having a width less than about 2 mm, as claimed in claim 13, and a center-to-center pitch less than about 0.2 mm, as claimed in claim 14.
However, the ultimate performance of a TGP wick will depend on several design parameters, including the material choice, overall structural geometry, thickness, pore size and spacing, and surface treatments or coatings. Proper optimization of these parameters, in turn, will depend on the physical and chemical properties of the working fluid, including its viscosity, density, conductivity, temperature, and polarity, as taught by Carter [col. 8, lines 26-43]. This is, the width of the wick structure is considered to be an obvious design expedient, wherein a person of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would design the width of the wick according to the user's heat transfer requirements. Therefore, absent criticality or unexpected results of the claimed range, the width of the wick structure and the center-to-center pitch are considered result-effective variables, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust width of the wick structure through routine experimentation to arrive at a value which create the desired heat transfer capacity since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Claims 16 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Hsu does not disclose:
the deformed mesh (11) comprising a metallic polymer, metal coated polymer, ceramic coated polymer, ALD coated polymer, copper coated steel, or copper coated stainless steel, as claimed in claim 16; or comprising copper, steel, copper-coated polymer or ceramic-coated metal, as claimed in claim 19.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice of mesh-type capillary structures comprising a metallic polymer, a metal coated polymer, a ceramic coated polymer, an ALD coated polymer, a copper coated steel, a copper coated stainless steel, copper, steel, copper-coated polymer or ceramic-coated metal, for their use in the heat pipe/vacuum chamber art and the selection of any of these known materials would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the election of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 regarding the mesh supporting member (11) in Hsu not being a deformed mesh comprising deformed portions that are compressed out of plane relative to the undeformed portions do not apply to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant arguments regarding Hsu not disclosing a first casing layer and a second casing layer hermetically sealed at their outer peripheries are unpersuasive. However, a further explanation on how Hsu reads on the aforementioned limitations, including a definition of “layer” in the context of a thermal ground plane, is provided in the rejection above.
Applicant arguments regarding a Hsu not disclosing a sheet with ordered and nonordered array of holes etched in the sheet, as claimed in claim 22 were directed to an interpretation of claim 22 made by the Examiner based on a 112(b) rejection of claim 22 presented in the Office Action mailed on 02/05/2026. The aforementioned 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn based on the remarks presented in 06/29/2026. Further, new grounds of rejection are presented above regarding claim 22.
Applicant arguments regarding Hsu not disclosing that the height of the undeformed portion is greater than the sum of the thickness of the deformed portions and the permeable wick since the Examiner fails to state whether it is the thickness/heigh of the deformed portions that are result effective variable or whether it is the thickness/height of the thermal ground plane have been fully considered and found not persuasive. In response, the teachings of Carter regarding the overall structural geometry, thickness, etc. (emphasis added), of a wick of a thermal ground plane, include the general geometry and shape of the wick element. Further, as explained in the rejection above, Hsu alludes to the possibility of the deformed mesh (11) having different geometrical dimensions for the deformed portions (110) and the undeformed portions (111), like the cross-section area of the deformed portions (110) being larger than the cross-section area of the undeformed portion (111) [par. 0019].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights