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 .
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 6 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 6, the claim recites the limitation “the medium” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim has been interpreted to mean, in line 2:
--a medium--.
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, 4-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (JP 2007/147226A, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses:
a deformable substrate (15) (fig. 1) [par. 0001] comprising:
a first set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, page 3);
a second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, page 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
506
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a channel (11) [par. 0039] encapsulated by the first set of layers and the second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above); and
a plurality of spacers (14) within the channel (110 [par. 0041] and contacting the first set of layers and the second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above), wherein
the channel (11) is bounded by an interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and an interior layer (13) of the second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above),
the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers each comprises a wicking composition (13) [par. 0039] and each comprises an interior face that faces the channel (11) and an exterior face that opposes the channel (11) layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above),
a first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the first set of layers overlays the exterior face of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above),
a first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the second set of layers overlays the exterior face of the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above),
an exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the first set of layers overlays the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the first set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, above),
an exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the second set of layers overlays the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the second set of layers (see annotated fig.1-YAMAMOTO, page 3),
the exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the first set of layers and the exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the second set of layers each comprises a first polymeric composition (polyimide) [par. 0049 and 0053], and
the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the first set of layers and the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the second set of layers each comprises a second polymeric composition (19, polyethylene therephthalate) [par. 0044].
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses:
the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers comprises a non-woven fiber mat [par. 0045].
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses:
the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers interfacing with a different composition (working fluid) [par. 0039] (per definition of “different composition” in the instant specification PGPub par. 0118). Since the structural limitations are met, then Yamamoto will disclose the resulting functional limitations of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers comprising a contact angle of less than 50 degrees (°) when interfacing with the working fluid. Furthermore, per MPEP 2112 (III), Yamamoto, teaching the same structure claimed, can be expected to perform similarly regarding a limitation in terms of function, property or characteristic (a contact angle of less than 50 degrees when interfacing with the working fluid).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses:
the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers covers a medium (working fluid) from a first end portion of the channel (11) to a second end portion of the channel (13) (the working cycle of heat pipes is old and known in the art).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto discloses:
The deformable substrate (15) structurally as claimed. Since the structural limitations are met then Yamamoto will disclose the resulting functional limitations of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers having a resistance under at most 100 Ohms per cm when the deformable substrate is subjected to 100% strain, and wherein the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers maintains conductivity when subjected to at least 15,000 strain cycles. Furthermore, per MPEP 2112 (III), Yamamoto, teaching the same structure claimed, can be expected to perform similarly regarding a limitation in terms of function, property or characteristic (a resistance under at most 100 Ohms per cm when the deformable substrate is subjected to 100% strain and maintaining conductivity when subjected to at least 15,000 strain cycles).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses:
The deformable substrate (15) structurally as claimed. Since the structural limitations are met then Yamamoto will disclose the resulting functional limitations of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers having a resistance under at most 100 Ohms per cm when the deformable substrate is subjected to 100% strain at a first strain cycle, and under at most 100 Ohms per cm when subjected to 100% strain at a second strain cycle, and the second strain cycle being at least 15,000 strain cycles greater than the first strain cycle. Furthermore, per MPEP 2112 (III), Yamamoto, teaching the same structure claimed, can be expected to perform similarly regarding a limitation in terms of function, property or characteristic.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses:
a first thickness of the deformable substrate (15) being between 8 microns (µm) and 2,500 µm [par. 0043].
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses:
a second thickness of the exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the first set of layers or the exterior layer (21 plus 19) of the second set of layers being between 1 µm and 200 µm [par. 0044].
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto discloses:
a third thickness of the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the first set of layers or the first intermediate layer (20 plus 19 plus 20) of the second set of layers being between 1 µm and 2,500 µm [par. 0044].
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto discloses:
an exterior surface of the deformable substrate (15) comprises one or more folds (see folds of exterior layer component 21, fig. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of in view of Nemec (www.intechopen.com - Porous Structures in Heat Pipes, By Patrik Nemec, Published: December 20th 2017, segment attached) and Andraka et al. (US 6,648,063, herein “Andraka”).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto does not disclose:
the porosity of the wicking composition being between 50% and 99%.
However, Yamamoto discloses the wicking composition (13) comprising metal fibers [par. 0045] and it is old and known in the art that capillary structures made from metal fibers have porosity. Further, it is also well known in the art that, regardless of the wick configuration, the desired material properties and structural characteristics of heat pipe wick structures are a high thermal conductivity, high wick porosity, small capillary radius, and high wick permeability, as taught by Nemec (attached), and it is also known that high wick permeability offers low fluid resistance and allows the wick to recharge as vapor evolves off the wick, so that, with greater permeability (high porosity), more liquid is supplied during application of heat, and therefore, more heat can be transferred without wick dryout, as taught by Andraka [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this instance, it would have been obvious to have the wicking composition of Yamamoto having a high porosity to yield the predictable result of improving heat transfer. See MPEP 2143-I(D). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the porosity of the wicking composition being between 50% and 99% since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05, Section II). In this instance, the porosity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that having the optimal porosity, heat transfer is optimized, as clearly taught by Andraka. Therefore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto does not disclose:
the first polymeric composition comprises polydimethylsiloxane silicone (PDMS), polyurethane (PU), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polystyrene-block-polyisoprene-block-polystyrene (SIS), or a combination thereof. However, the election of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto does not disclose:
a fourth thickness of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers being between 1 µm and 500 µm.
However, Although the specific thickness of the interior layer is not disclosed in Yamamoto, the thickness of a heat pipe is designed to optimize heat transfer and to make the pipe suitable to be used within an electronic component (see Yamamoto par. 0002). Yamamoto discloses the total thickness of the heat pipe substrate (15: 16/17) being between 500 µm and 30000 µm [par. 0043] and, inherently, the thickness of any wick composition (interior layer 13) provided in the heat pipe’s chamber will be smaller than the thickness of the pipe. Therefore, absent criticality or unexpected results of the claimed ranges, the thickness of the interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers 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 interior layer (13) of the first set of layers and the interior layer (13) of the second set of layers through routine experimentation to arrive at a value which create the desired heat transfer capacity while having the heat pipe suitable to be used within an electronic component. 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).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Lewis et al. (US 2024/0369306, herein “Lewis”).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto discloses:
the plurality of spacers (14) being columns but does not disclose the spacers comprising one or more stents. However, Yamamoto discloses the spacers (14) being not particularly restricted as long as they are made of a relatively rigid material [par. 0045]. Lewis, also directed to a flexible heat pipe (figs. 15A-15B) [par. 0129] comprising spacers (1505, 1525) teaches that spacers (1505) may include a mesh structure [par. 0162] as an obvious variation of other column-type spacers (1525) (fig. 15B) [par. 0163]. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the plurality of spacers of Yamamoto comprising stents or meshes as an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs for the purpose of optimizing heat transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights