DETAILED ACTION
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 15 recites the limitation "diamond interface material coolant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 depends form claim 5 and this limitation is not found in claim 5. For examination purpose it will be assumed that claim 15 intended to depend from claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see new claim 15, filed 1/8/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
It is argued that Chauhan states the disordered diamond is not diamond itself and further fails to teach a diamond pure carbon allotrope.
As stated in the attached article: Nanodiamonds: Synthesis and Applications by Mohd Bilal Khan and Zishan H Khan, section 1.1, “Two pure carbon crystalline forms are graphite … and diamond…” and further states “With the advancement of science and technology at nanoscale, some other forms of carbon such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene and nanodiamond were discovered and explored. Nanodiamonds are actually carbon nanostructures in which carbon atoms are arranged in diamond-like manner.” So nanodiamonds, which is short for nanocrystalline diamond, isn’t made of diamond itself, it is diamond-like. Hence Chauhan’s reference to nanocrystalline diamond as a DLC that isn’t diamond itself. As a material that is made of carbon arranged in a diamond-like manner, nanocrystalline diamond is a material that displays properties similar to diamond, it is a form of diamond that exists in a nanoscale structure. Consequently, Chauhan teaches the claimed diamond pure carbon allotrope nano crystalline diamond layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al., CN 106876348, in view of Chauhan, US 2016/0021788, supported by Nanodiamonds: Synthesis and Applications by Mohd Bilal Khan and Zishan H Khan, section 1.1.
Regarding claim 5, Yan (figure 1) teaches a heat spreader for dissipating heat from an electronic component, the heat spreader comprising:
a metal heat spreader 4 having an outside surface;
a layer covering, at least partially, a portion of the outside surface of the metal heat spreader 4 (Yan’s specification states: “In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the groove 5 and the fixing block 6 between the connection manner is welding, welding connection method not only fixing is firm, the welding material is metal, its conductivity, so as not to influence the metal substrate 4 and the fins 7 between the heat transfer, it is good for radiating of the metal substrate 4”);
a first side (top of 4) that is in direct contact with the electronic component 1; and
a second side (bottom of 4) opposite to the first side (top of 4) and adapted to cooperate with a heat sink base 7 having a cooperating geometry, the second side (bottom of 4) having a plurality of fins (which form grooves 5) adapted to mate with a plurality of corresponding fins 6 on the heat sink base 7.
Yan fails to teach the layer is a nano crystalline diamond layer, the nano crystalline diamond layer comprising diamond pure carbon allotrope.
Chauhan (figure 4) teaches a nano crystalline diamond layer (paragraph 0018 states the layer can be a nano/micro crystalline diamond coating) covering 154, at least partially, a portion of the outside surface of the metal heat spreader 156.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the nano crystalline diamond layer of Chauhan in the invention of Yan because Chauhan teaches it provides improved thermal interfaces and thermal properties (paragraph 0006).
As stated in the attached Khan and Khan article: Nanodiamonds: Synthesis and Applications by Mohd Bilal Khan and Zishan H Khan, section 1.1, “Two pure carbon crystalline forms are graphite … and diamond…” and further states “With the advancement of science and technology at nanoscale, some other forms of carbon such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene and nanodiamond were discovered and explored. Nanodiamonds are actually carbon nanostructures in which carbon atoms are arranged in diamond-like manner.” So nanodiamonds, which is short for nanocrystalline diamond, isn’t made of diamond itself, it is diamond-like. Hence Chauhan’s reference to nanocrystalline diamond as a DLC that isn’t diamond itself. As a material that is made of carbon arranged in a diamond-like manner, nanocrystalline diamond is a material that displays properties similar to diamond, it is a form of diamond that exists in a nanoscale structure. Consequently, Chauhan teaches the claimed diamond pure carbon allotrope nano crystalline diamond layer.
With respect to claim 6, the Khan and Khan article (see excerpt above) teaches the nano crystalline diamond layer comprises a plurality of diamond crystals having crystalline sizes in a nanometer range.
As to claim 7, Chauhan (figures 3-4) teaches the metal heat spreader 4 is encapsulated with the nano crystalline diamond layer 154.
In re claim 8, though Chauhan fails to teach the nano crystalline diamond layer is combined with a layer of liquefied diamond coolant, the diamond thermal interface material coolant being a paste comprising solid diamond powder and liquid metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a layer of liquefied diamond coolant in the invention of Chauhan because they are conventionally known and used in the art by skilled artisans to improve the bond between an electronic component and a heat spreader. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 9, Chauhan (figures 1 & 2) teaches the nano crystalline diamond layer 154 covers at least the first side of the heat spreader 110/156 that is in direct contact with the electronic component 102.
Pertaining to claim 11, Chauhan (paragraph 0014 states the use of Al & Cu) teaches the metal heat spreader is made of a refractory metal substrate, wherein page 12, paragraph 0040 of your specification states Al & Cu are refractory materials.
In claim 12, though Chauhan, which teaches the use of Al & Cu (paragraph 0014), fails to teach the refractory metal substrate of the metal heat spreader is molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), titanium alloy (TIA14V6), or platinum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the claimed refractory metals for the refractory metals in the invention of Chauhan because they are known equivalent refractory metals. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 13, though Yan and Chauhan fail to teach the diamond thermal interface material coolant comprises at least 20% by weight diamond micro powder solute and a liquid metal solvent, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the diamond thermal interface material coolant through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 14, Chauhan teach the diamond thermal interface material coolant eliminates a need for soldering. Chauhan does not teach the use of solder.
As to claim 15, a diamond thermal interface material coolant is disposed between the plurality of fins of the heat spreader and the plurality of corresponding fins on the heat sink base, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a layer of liquefied diamond coolant in the invention of Yan and Chauhan because they are conventionally known and used in the art by skilled artisans to improve the bond between an electronic component and a heat spreader, and their fins. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon teaches the state of the art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 2/26/2026